About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Visual Land, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2018) »

June 03, 2018


I would greatly like to hear Michael's and his readers' comments on the suggestion in the opinion that it may be easier for a defendant to prevail on a Rule 56 summary judgment motion than on a Rule 12 motion. Given such cases as Twombly and Iqbal, does Rule 56 provide an end run around Aatrix and Berkheimer? And would plaintiff's affidavits overcome that?

Mr. Stern,

Does it not depend to no small degree to whom any averments must be taken in favor of?

If the facts (and pleadings) are to be taken as true as to one party or the other, then whether or not the topic here (factual basis of a legal question) comes into play, and for whom would the case be easier, are directly related, N'est ce pas?

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29