I do have some docs from the Freeborn & Peters v Duffy et al case, but there are more questions than answers at this moment. A person with first-hand knowledge had hinted that he will explain the Duffy/Voelker/Fletcher game to me. I definitely won't sit on this info once enough clarity is reached! Just don't want to spill interim, inconclusive stuff: this may do more harm to the cause that good.
One important facepalm moment that a laypeople definitely missed (I missed it too, but attorneys explained) occurred at the very last minute. When a judge says that something in the argument or brief was offensive, she expects a professional reaction: an apology and an explanation. It was a yellow light, invitation to fix a mistake. Instead, Voelker, this “big league litigator,” who never misses a chance to brag about his 28 year experience, replies “Anything else, your Honor?”
(“Courts have held that, in situations where ‘the copyright [author] appears to have no dispute with its [assignee] on this matter, it would be anomalous to permit a third party infringer to invoke [Section 204(a)’s signed writing requirement] against the [assignee].’” (alterations in original)); Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (“When there is no dispute between the copyright owner and transferee, it would be unusual and unwarranted to permit a third-party infringer to invoke § 204(a) to avoid suit for copyright infringement.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Albeit it is a case law reference, it is, IMO, still insulting to use the term “infringer” affirmatively, while no determination on the merits against defendants has been made, neither as a judgment, nor a jury verdict.