Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 1/22/2011 6:54:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/22/2011 6:54:55 AM EDT by Aimless]
Link Posted: 1/20/2011 6:34:01 PM EDT
looks like adams needs to file an apeal with a better lawyer
Link Posted: 1/22/2011 6:48:13 AM EDT
Since when was "not likely to succeed" reason for dismissal? It never has been in all those frivolous personal injury cases or liability cases against the firearms industry or any other large corporation.
Link Posted: 1/22/2011 6:59:44 AM EDT
That was not the ruling.

I've only seen the linked article, but the linked article does not suggest that the case was dismissed. Only that a preliminary injunction banning sales of the claimed infringing products.
That is an early motion in a patent case. And in such a motion, one element is indeed proving a likelihood of prevailing on proving that the defendant's product infringes.
Link Posted: 1/22/2011 9:22:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/23/2011 8:03:16 PM EDT
Don't forget the "Rhino" system. It's paten ran out two years ago if memory serves opening up the floodgates for piston systems. It was a piston conversion in the late 70's to early 80's for AR-15 / M16 Rifles.
Link Posted: 1/24/2011 5:46:39 AM EDT
The gist of the article is that the judge turned down a request for an injunction. Looks like the lawsuit will proceed.
Link Posted: 2/1/2011 10:03:20 AM EDT
Defendant made a motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff responded on 9/10/2010, doesn't appear that a ruling on that motion has been made yet or at least published.
Top Top