April 16, 2019 court filing - Revision history

JSaxe: Redirected to TechShop#20190416

2025-03-07T18:06:20Z

Redirected to TechShop#20190416

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 7 March 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~info moved to~~ [[TechShop]]		#REDIRECT [[TechShop#20190416]]

Jschrempp: Replaced content with "info moved to TechShop"

2025-03-01T02:42:53Z

Replaced content with "info moved to TechShop"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 28 February 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~'''Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 146 Filed 04/16/19 Page 5 of 6'''~~		info moved to [[TechShop]]

	~~Defendants will ultimately ask the Court~~ to find that this is an “exceptional” case. Among other bases, the fact that a former officer and Board member of a direct competitor of Defendants brought this case—and did so only one day after resigning from Maker Nexus—suggests that the case was brought for anti-competitive purposes. Further, that Plaintiff’s counsel knew before filing suit that potential customers were well-informed and knew about the negotiations between Plaintiff and Mr. Rasure, such that there could be no confusion, suggests that the case was not brought in good faith. Defendants do not intend to make these arguments before the jury, but do reserve the right to make them before the Court.

	~~To the extent the Court grants this alternative relief, Defendants should still be permitted to introduce the video from the Maker Nexus “town hall meeting” because it is highly relevant and~~
	~~there is no way to remove Plaintiff’s counsel from the video.~~

Frankst: court filing

2019-04-24T04:35:19Z

court filing

New page

'''Case 4:18-cv-01044-HSG Document 146 Filed 04/16/19 Page 5 of 6'''

Defendants will ultimately ask the Court to find that this is an “exceptional” case. Among other bases, the fact that a former officer and Board member of a direct competitor of Defendants brought this case—and did so only one day after resigning from Maker Nexus—suggests that the case was brought for anti-competitive purposes. Further, that Plaintiff’s counsel knew before filing suit that potential customers were well-informed and knew about the negotiations between Plaintiff and Mr. Rasure, such that there could be no confusion, suggests that the case was not brought in good faith. Defendants do not intend to make these arguments before the jury, but do reserve the right to make them before the Court.

To the extent the Court grants this alternative relief, Defendants should still be permitted to introduce the video from the Maker Nexus “town hall meeting” because it is highly relevant and
there is no way to remove Plaintiff’s counsel from the video.