[mysterypie]

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: [phone]
  Facsimile: [phone]
  [e-mail]

  Of Counsel:
  RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP
  Leslie L. Jacobs, Jr. (pro hac vice forthcoming)
  800 Connecticut Avenue, NW
  Washington, DC 20006
  Telephone: [phone]
  Facsimile: [phone]
  [e-mail]
  [e-mail]
  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]

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

[mysterypie]

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]

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]

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