I am in complete agreement with mike c and rnatalli, above, on this--that's exactly my point. Monster's the one coming to the table, accusing me of something and trying to get me to do what it wants, so it can take the time to prove it.
I wasn't thinking of laches (I'm more of an estoppel guy, when it comes to ancient equitable doctrines...). The information is relevant in multiple ways. How did Monster previously construe the scope of its patents and trademarks? What types of connectors has it previously contended constitute infringement? What arguments has Monster presented which indicate what it considers the core characteristics of its designs to be? Have connectors that look similar to these been alleged to constitute infringement of the expired patent? What happened when they sued? Have courts ruled on the scope of the patents and trademarks? You get the drift--information like that is very useful in evaluating a claim.
As for it being my responsibility to check--well, see the first point above. Mind you, what a good lawyer does is ask the question (if they sue me, I get to ask it in discovery and the court will force them to answer if need be), and then ALSO investigate it, to be sure that he's not being lied to. But there is no harm in asking, and this is one of the areas where Monster is very likely to be sitting on secrets. In particular, since Monster threatens everybody, all of the time, it's very likely that they've contended that a similar connector fell within the scope of that expired patent--a fact they'd have a really hard time explaining away.
Kurt
Blue Jeans Cable
