November 30, 2007
As reported last year, Keith Whittle got heated and sued an old friend, Theo Cummings, who had prosecuted a heated body pad patent for him gratis, for doing a bad job of it; namely, leaving out the heated part. Whittle also sued Proctor & Gamble, where Cummings used to work, and Theo's wife, for no good reason that the presiding judge could figure. Tuesday the judge pitched the case under Federal Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the "what are we talking about?" rule. The judge will allow Whittle to refile a more cogent complaint. Cogency does not appear to be Keith Whittle's long suit.
Posted by Patent Hawk at November 30, 2007 6:16 PM | Litigation
Rule 2 6 (b) appears to be unchanged.
Posted by: judge cornish at December 4, 2007 7:34 AM
Rule 6 (b) 2 appears to be unchanged.
Posted by: judge cornish at December 4, 2007 7:39 AM