Kroll v. Doll
This text of Kroll v. Doll (Kroll v. Doll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MICHAEL I. KROLL, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 09-1484 (JR) : JOHN J. DOLL, Director, U.S. : Patent and Trademark Office, et : al., : : Defendants. :
MEMORANDUM
Neither party has added anthing but argument to the
record since my memorandum order of 1/29/10 [#12]. Plaintiff
(a) argues that the question of what is a reasonable
interpretation under Chevron always involves disputed questions
of fact, and (b) invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to support his
demand for discovery, but (a) the Ninth Circuit case on which he
relies (which never was controlling law in this Circuit) was
reversed, Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (2001), and (b) his Rule
56(f) motion is unsupported by the required affidavit or by any
statement of what discovery is needed or what plaintiff (or the
Court) might learn from it. For the reasons set forth in my
memorandum order of 1/29/10, summary judgment will now be granted
in favor of the PTO. An appropriate order accompanies this
memorandum.
JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kroll v. Doll, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroll-v-doll-dcd-2010.