4 ms·

In the PDF documents that Playsaurus has put online, the accuser's lawyers have redacted one line, and that's in the "The lawsuit they will file if we don't pay

In the PDF documents that Playsaurus has put online, the accuser's lawyers have redacted one line, and that's in the "The lawsuit they will file if we don't pay" document at the bottom, where it says: THE deBRUIN FIRM, LLC [Redacted] David W. deBruin (#4846) 1201 N. Orange Street, Suite 500 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Telephone: (302) 660-2744 Facsimile: (302) 650-1574 ddebruin@thedebruinfirm.com Of Counsel: RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr. (pro hac vice forthcoming) 800 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (240) 356-1549 Facsimile: (202) 223-1849 ljacobs@rubinrudman.com gcoman@rubinrudman.com Attorney for Plaintiff GTX Corp. I was curious what was being redacted. Examining it with Acrobat Professional, I was able to discover that it says: /s/ David W. deBruin So it's just a signature. Btw, I'm pretty sure that the redaction was done by accusing lawyers and not by Playsaurus because the document author is "Leslie L. Jacobs", who is one of the accuser's lawyers. Though it's still not clear to me why the accuser has two sets of lawyers (THE deBRUIN FIRM and RUBIN AND RUDMAN). Anyone know what might be up with that?

dragonwriter 9y ago
It looks like Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr., of Rubin and Rudman is associated with working in some manner on this case for the deBruin Firm, despite not being in the regular employ of the firm, and hence is listed in the filing as “Of Counsel” [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel
- mysterypie 9y ago
  Do you suppose that the deBruin Firm did this deliberately to distance themselves from the case, so they still get a cut of the money, but Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr. and his firm Rubin and Rudman get the potentially bad publicity for being patent trolls? Leslie L. Jacobs wrote pro hac vice ("for this occasion only") after his name, which makes it sound like a one time engagement and not a frequent collaboration with the deBruin Firm.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    pro hac vice on this kind of filing refers, I'm fairly certain, to the lawyer not being regularly admitted to practice in the jurisdiction but being (or seeking to be) permitted to practice for that specific case.
mncharity 9y ago
deBruin and Jacobs are also involved with Genedics, LLC v. Meta Company. Trolling in VR/AR seems likely to become massive.

dragonwriter 9y ago

It looks like Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr., of Rubin and Rudman is associated with working in some manner on this case for the deBruin Firm, despite not being in the regular employ of the firm, and hence is listed in the filing as “Of Counsel” [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_counsel

mysterypie 9y ago
Do you suppose that the deBruin Firm did this deliberately to distance themselves from the case, so they still get a cut of the money, but Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr. and his firm Rubin and Rudman get the potentially bad publicity for being patent trolls? Leslie L. Jacobs wrote pro hac vice ("for this occasion only") after his name, which makes it sound like a one time engagement and not a frequent collaboration with the deBruin Firm.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  pro hac vice on this kind of filing refers, I'm fairly certain, to the lawyer not being regularly admitted to practice in the jurisdiction but being (or seeking to be) permitted to practice for that specific case.

mncharity 9y ago

deBruin and Jacobs are also involved with Genedics, LLC v. Meta Company. Trolling in VR/AR seems likely to become massive.