Re: [tlug] OT: Putting "intellectual" into "intellectual Property"

["Joshua Bearden" <joshua.bearden@example.com>]

The powerful "request for particulars" parry and riposte. Something
they don't actually teach us in law school but I'm starting to realize
is an indispensable part of the IP lawyers defensive arsenal.  This is
a great example.  While Monster may not actually need to answer
everyone of Denke's questions in order to mount an infringement suit
the letter provides a warning of the amount of discovery that Denke
would be prepared to demand in a preliminary motion.  Discovery -->
costs, so it's a good way to up the stakes immediately.


Kurt Denke, wrote to  a notorious patent shark:

...

Also,  please provide me all of the information referenced above as it
relates to your expired patent D323643, a copy of which I am
attaching.  I will need to know what products Monster now offers or at
any time has offered for sale which were believed to fall within the
scope of D323643, and what claims, if any, of infringement of D323643
were made against others by Monster, whether those claims of
infringement took the form of correspondence only, litigation, or
otherwise.  Please let me know  which, if any, products Monster has
ever sold or offered for sale which were marked with the patent
number, or other reference, to  D323643.  Please also advise me
whether, in your view, the Tartan connector does or does not fall
within the scope of D323643, and if it is your view that it does not,
please identify each and every difference between the Tartan connector
and the connector represented by D323643 upon which your view is
based.

...

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:50 PM, CL <az.4tlug@example.com> wrote:
> Received this in private mail from a lawyer I do research work for.  I found
> it fascinating.  Follow the links at the bottom of the page for additional
> background.
>
>  CL