“The motion pending has no substantive basis to support a decline or removal, bound by law or fact.” – Judge Gonzalez Rogers
Last week, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order denying Cellspin Soft’s motion to dismiss the summary judgment that released Fitbit, Nike, Under Armour, and others from patent infringement liability.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote, “In short, the plaintiff’s attack on the integrity of the judiciary … not only shows a degree of despair, but a disconnect from the law and the facts.”
Cellspin Soft attempted to point out Gonzalez Rogers’ husband’s business ties with Fitbit’s parent company, Google. The company argued that these connections required a Section 455 refusal.
The company also noted that the investments disclosed by the judge would provide financial benefits to other companies in the lawsuit, including Nike and Samsung.
However, the district judge found numerous reasons to dismiss the motion, including lack of jurisdiction and timeliness. Judge Gonzalez Rogers went into detail in addressing the allegations to “promote transparency and preserve the court’s credibility in light of plaintiffs’ broader allegations.”
Dealing with accusations
Cellspin Soft made three allegations that may have caused Judge Gonzalez Rogers to drop the case, vacating the previous summary judgment against the company. Three allegations relate to the judge’s husband’s work and financial interests.
The first allegation was that Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ husband worked as a Senior Partner Consultant in the oil and gas sector at the consulting firm McKinsey. Cellspin Soft cited McKinsey and Google helping clients in this space, suggesting that the relationship would cause the district judge to give her a bias in favor of Google.
In response to this charge, Judge Gonzalez Rogers wrote, “The evolutionary theory of plaintiffs’ dismissal is nothing but baseless speculation disconnected from the evidence.”
Second, Cellspin argued that Gonzalez Rogers’ job as an operations partner at Ajax, where the judge’s husband oversaw the startup’s operations, was a conflict of interest. This is because the project was funded by Google and otherwise operated jointly with Google. tech giant.
A district court judge ruled that Cellspin misrepresented her husband’s involvement in the company by stating that it had an equity stake in the company if his role was that of a contractor.
Gonzalez Rogers said, “This argument is baseless, unsubstantiated and grossly misrepresents the records provided.
Finally, Cellspin cited three previously disclosed investments in index funds as support for the rejection. This includes his $43.6 million holdings from his two Vanguard funds totaling $9.4 million, according to 2020 financial disclosures.
However, the judge said all three funds fall under the safe harbor exemption because they are managed by third parties and are made up of various companies across the stock market.
“Plaintiffs have not offered legal authority to support the illusory claim that the investment at issue here is not somehow exempt from safe harbor,” she added.
For all of these reasons, Gonzalez Rogers ruled that “the motion at issue has no substantial basis, bound by law or fact, to uphold the decline or removal.”
Background
Prior to sentencing, both Cellspin and one of the defendants filed briefs with the court. Fitbit filed a response brief opposing the motion to dismiss in early February, and in response, Cellspin filed a response supporting the dismissal on February 10.
Judge Gonzales Rogers used many of the same arguments Fitbit used to dismiss the brief. Ultimately, when it stated that Cellspin’s strategic use of the ethical obligations of federal courts was barred and Fitbit had to dismiss its motions based on the timeliness requirements of the motions to dismiss. , a district court judge agreed with Fitbit.
In its summary of responses, Cellspin claimed to have filed a motion to dismiss shortly after the “problematic financial relationship” became apparent.
what happened now?
In a statement to IP watchdogCellspin Soft founder Bobby Singh said the company plans to appeal the district court’s ruling.
Singh said some aspects of the ruling provided new information to Cellspin soft, including the judge’s husband being a board member of Natel Energy and a board adviser to Ojjo. Both companies have ties to Ajax, but Cellspin’s motion makes no mention of Ojjo, with Gonzalez Rogers writing in a footnote that Ojjo is the company her husband serves on as board counsel. Although her order acknowledged that affiliation, “the undersigned has no affiliation with Google, Ojjo, or any other party that warrants a refusal in this case.”
Additionally, Gonzalez Rogers writes that Cellspin misrepresented an article about Natel Energy in order to tie it to funding from Google. The judge said the article “does not prove that Google invested in Natel. The undersigned and her husband are unaware that Google invested in Natel.”
Singh also disputed Gonzalez Rogers’ classification of the McKinsey-managed Special Situations Fund as “something like a mutual fund.” This is because the fund’s own website describes the majority of the assets under management as being “managed by third-party managers at their complete discretion” (i.e. hedge funds, private equity, and other alternative investment managers)”
Shin said IP watchdog“Cellspin does not believe federal judges can grant exceptions to investments in hedge funds or private equity. The only exception is regular mutual funds.”
Image Source: Deposit Photo
Image ID: 510374994
Copyright: witsarut1803.gmail.com
