I'm reposting wolf's PACER (thanks wolf!) with a few comments with hope for some discussion (speculation). I have bolded a few parts that struck me as interesting.
-----------------------------
New Pacer--Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/13/2009
Acer, Inc. et al v. Technology Properties Limited et al
Jeremy Fogel, presiding
Howard R. Lloyd, referral
Date filed: 02/08/2008
Date of last filing: 11/16/2009
Documents
Doc.
No. Dates Description
152 Filed & Entered: 11/16/2009
Transcript
Transcript of Proceedings held on 11/13/2009, before Judge Jeremy Fogel. Court Reporter/Transcriber Summer Clanton, Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerks Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction.After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/11/2010. (Clanton, Summer) (Filed on 11/16/2009
--------------------------
So, 152 documents filed and enter during this conference before Judge Fogel. I am wondering which side filed what documents. The number seems like a fair amount and likely involves both sides. From our side, we are likely filing our supporting documents for infringement and, perhaps, the NIRC and related documents supporting validity.
The date for availability through PACER is after the SHM, and initially I thought it might be a way for the proceedings to be kept under wraps until the details of something occurring here are revealed at or by the SHM. BUT, it appears that one can purchase a copy NOW directly through the Court Reporter/Transcriber, which would preclude anything of the sort, meaning keeping things hidden until 11-Feb-09.
I know another poster asked if anyone has easy access to order a copy of the transcript, and it would be desirable to know just what went on in that meeting. I am going into surgery tomorrow and will not be able to follow-up myself, but will be able to check back with this board in a few days. All this USPTO and litigation in the CA Courts is threatening to come to a head in the near future, IMO, and this transcript might shed some light on the situation.
Any comments from those more knowledgeable than me on this matter?
Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
DG
