A simple typo. Of course I meant Sakar bought Vivitar, not S-B.
And yes there’s something to show there were settlement talks. It’s found in Doc 47 and pasted below.
“Plaintiff/CounterDefendant e.Digital Corporation (“eDigital”) requests a one week extension of time to file a response to the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record filed by Defendant/CounterPlaintiff, Vivitar Corporation (“Vivitar”) (Rec. Doc. 46). Vivitar filed its Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record (Rec. Doc. 46) on October 7, 2008. The response of Plaintiff/CounterDefendant e.Digital Corporation is due to be filed on or by October 22, 2008. The Parties are engaged in attempts to work out a settlement. Accordingly, eDigital respectfully requests a one week extension of time, until October 29, 2008, to file its opposition to Vivitar’s Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record. This Motion is not filed for, and will not result in, any delay. Further, this Motion is unopposed. A proposed Order is enclosed.”
To me this is crystal clear and refers to working out a settlement of the IP infringement by Vivitar. You seem to think it refers to EDIG’s lawyers and Vivitar’s lawyers working out a settlement of the motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record by Vivitar’s lawyers. That’s preposterous IMO. Parties are NEVER the attorneys. Parties are always the Plaintiff and/or Defendant(s). And the word ‘settlement’ would not be used in the manner you’re implying. The statement is there to tell the Court the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record would be moot if they reach a settlement on the IP infringement. The case would be over in a snap.
Let’s get a consensus from the board.
1. Does anyone think the Doc 47 statement in bold above pertains to EDIG’s and Vivitar’s lawyers being engaged in working out a settlement concerning the withdraw of Vivitar’s lawyers?
2. Does anyone here think the above statement means EDIG and Vivitar were engaged in IP infringement settlement talks?
3. Does anyone here think there is nothing to show that there were settlement talks when Doc 47 clearly states there were?
If I misinterpreted the statement in Doc 47, I’ll be glad to admit my error and give you a sincere apology.
