AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC

Filing 189

MOTION for Reconsideration re 182 Memorandum & Opinion, Order (Corrected Defendants' Statement of Objections to and Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Love's Markman Memorandum Opinion and Order) by First Funds, LLC, Merchant Money Tree, Inc., Reach Financial, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Gray, Joseph)

AdvanceMe Inc v. RapidPay LLC

Doc. 189 Att. 3

Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED

Document 189

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION ADVANCEME, INC. Plaintiff, VS. RAPIDPAY, LLC, BUSINESS CAPITAL CORPORATION, FIRST FUNDS LLC, MERCHANT MONEY TREE, INC., REACH FINANCIAL, LLC and FAST TRANSACT, INC. d/b/a SIMPLE CASH Defendants. _______________________________________ ADVANCEME, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMERIMERCHANT, LLC, Defendant. _______________________________________ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

CAUSE NO. 6:05-CV-424 LED

______________________________________

CAUSE NO. 6:06-CV-0082 LED JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

______________________________________

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION FOR MODIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LOVE'S MARKMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On this day, the Court considered Defendants' Statement of Objections to and Motion for Modification of Magistrate Judge Love's December 21, 2006 Markman Memorandum Opinion and Order. After careful consideration, the Court finds Defendants' objections to be meritorious. Accordingly, Defendants' objections shall be, and are hereby, GRANTED.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 6:05-cv-00424-LED

Document 189

Filed 01/10/2007

Page 2 of 2

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the Markman Memorandum Opinion and Order is modified in the following ways: 1. "Obligation" shall be construed as: "an amount owed by the merchant that is independent of any particular purchase and outside of any of the fees and/or costs normally imposed on the merchant for a typical processing transaction." 2. "Third Party" shall be construed as: "party other than the merchant." 3. The Court finds that no structure is disclosed for the claimed functions of "forwarding a portion of the payment to the third party" (Claim 10), "forwarding at least a portion of the accumulated payments to the third party" (Claim 17), "periodically forwarding at least a portion of the payment to the third party" (Claim 18), or "forwarding to the third party an amount that is a percentage of the obligation" (Claim 19).