Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Judge Stewart Denies Novell Motion in Limine No. 7

By Pamela Jones et al.

Judge Stewart has denied Novell's Motion in Limine No. 7, saying that the motion is "essentially one for partial summary judgment and, as such, is untimely." He also says they can bring their issues up in jury instructions. That was SCO's argument, which has been adopted wholesale.

But I think it's a bit of sleight of hand to say it's a matter for summary judgment. In theory, it is true that Novell can bring it up again later on a motion for partial summary judgment, but in real-life terms, I think it would be a waste of time to do so, since the judge's order goes on to say that the issues Novell raises are issues of fact that must be decided by a jury. That telegraphs to my brain that any such summary judgment motion would be denied on the grounds that it's the jury that has to decide the matters. Unless in some alternate universe, SCO suddenly agreed with Novell on all the facts. Hardy har. But I'm just a paralegal by training, so I could be missing something here.

So, what I'm saying is, that as far as I can determine, Novell just got told no, period, final answer. It's up to the jury now. I am only guessing, but after the appeals court ruled that Judge Dale Kimball shouldn't have ruled on copyright ownership but should have left it to the jury, the new judge assigned is very likely to leave to the jury as much as he can. It takes longer, meaning it costs more to get there, but it's not a bad place to be, before a jury.

Full post as published by Groklaw on February 22, 2010 (boomark / email).