FLIR Moves to Strike Answer

Posted on May 8, 2010 by Matthew C. Phillips

This case began when FLIR brought a declaratory judgment action against Thomas L. Gambaro and Motionless Keyboard Co. (MKC), who had demanded payment from FLIR, alleging that certain FLIR handheld thermal imagers infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,332,322 (reported here).

Acting pro se, Gambaro filed an answer [PDF] on behalf of himself, MKC and a third company called Patent Enforcement Co., which was not named in the complaint.  Because Gambaro is not an attorney, FLIR filed a short motion to strike the answer [PDF], arguing that Gambaro, as a non-attorney, cannot answer on behalf of either MKC or Patent Enforcement Co.  FLIR's motion seems like a no-brainer.  It is well settled hornbook law that corporations must be represented in court by counsel.

FLIR's motion is set for oral argument before Judge Anna J. Brown at the same time as the Rule 16 Conference on June 24, 2010 at 1:30 PM ,

Tags: , , , ,
Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.oregonpatentlitigation.com/admin/trackback/201312
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to send a comment to the editor. Please do not include any information that you or someone else considers to be confidential in nature. Without prior establishment of an attorney-client relationship, unsolicited messages containing confidential information cannot be protected from disclosure.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.