Opinion ID: 493196
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellants' Motion

Text: 7 Appellees, Formwork et al., about a month before oral argument, filed a motion to dismiss 'the portion of the appeal . . . which pertains to the issues of patent infringement and attendant consequential issues' on the ground that the trial court's Conclusions of Law 31, 32, and 33 were not addressed by appellants in their main or reply briefs. Granting the motion would have left nothing but the trademark issue. Since deciding this motion would have required the same work demanded by decision of the appeal itself, consideration of the motion was deferred for decision with the appeal. Having now decided the issue of patent infringement, the motion, per se, is moot. It is therefore dismissed. Such a motion, raising the same issues as the appeal, not only serves no useful purpose but unnecessarily consumes the court's time. Having now considered the memorandum in support of the motion, however, the real purpose of the motion would appear to have been to correct an oversight in omitting an important argument from Formwork's brief based on the prior art Ted Nelson corner lock which the trial court relied on in its Conclusion of Law 33.