The other day in WebZero v. Clicvu, Judge Bryson characterized an argument as being akin to Charles Dickens’ character Wilkins Micawber:
As we have noted before, a party seeking further discovery under Rule 56(f) is “required to state with some precision the materials he hope[s] to obtain with further discovery, and exactly how he expect[s] those materials would help him in opposing summary judgment. It is not enough simply to assert, à la Wilkins Micawber, that ‘something will turn up.'” Simmons Oil Corp. v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp, 86 F.3d 1138, 1144 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to order additional discovery.
That got me to thinking that if I were ever to analogize a Supreme Court patent case to a fictional character, I would have to opt for KSR v. Teleflex and Charles Edward Biffen (a.k.a. “Biffy”):
“And there in a nutshell you have Charles Edward Biffen. As vague and woolen-headed a blighter as ever bit a sandwich.”
— Carry On, Jeeves by P.G. Wodehouse