KROLL v. DOLL et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 19, 2010. (MT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MICHAEL I. KROLL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN J. DOLL, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al., Defendants. : : : : : Civil Action No. 09-1484 (JR) : : : : : :

MEMORANDUM Neither party has added anthing but argument to the record since my memorandum order of 1/29/10 [#12]. (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 Plaintiff

memorandum order of 1/29/10, summary judgment will now be granted in favor of the PTO. memorandum. An appropriate order accompanies this

JAMES ROBERTSON United States District Judge