19 Tuesday Jun 2018
Six Benchslaps to Brighten Your Day, by Lisa Needham, Lawyerist.com
https://lawyerist.com/six-benchslaps-will-brighten-day/
As Ms. Needham describes it, “[f]or the unfamiliar, benchslap originally referred to one judge snarking at another, but now refers to any time a member of the bench crushes an attorney with wit, rage, or both.” It is also an excellent example of what not to do. -CCE
14 Saturday Apr 2018
Posted in Intellectual Property, Paralegals/Legal Assistants
≈ Comments Off on If You Want To Know How To Do Something, Ask A Paralegal.
How the legal profession under utilizes paralegals: exclusive interview with Deborah Hampton of Chemours, by Adam Houldsworth, World Trademark Review™ (hat tip to William P. Statsky)
I met Deborah Hampton years ago, and was impressed then by her intelligence, poise, kindness, and professionalism. I am even more impressed now. -CCE
24 Tuesday May 2016
Posted in Evidence, Intellectual Property, Research, Rule 901, Wayback Machine
≈ Comments Off on Using the Wayback Machine To Authenticate Evidence.
Tags
CMLaw Library Blog, Evidence, Internet Archive, Research, Rule 901, Wayback Machine, William P. Statsky
Wayback Machine Builds Reputation with Judiciary, by CMLaw Library Blog (with hat tip to William P. Statsky)
http://cmlawlibraryblog.classcaster.net/2016/05/12/wayback-machine-builds-reputation-with-judiciary/
What is the Wayback Machine? It’s been around since 2001. It is a mega-archive of websites. If you are a serious researcher, it is worth your time to learn how to use it. It is more than just a trip down nostalgia lane. You can easily find blog posts, articles, and videos that will give you an in-depth explanation on the Wayback Machine’s creation and what it does.
I like this post because it is the first illustration I’ve seen in which someone used the Wayback Machine as persuasive evidence in court. Thanks, Bill! -CCE
An April 2016 decision from the District of Kansas has given judicial notice to information contained in screenshots from the Wayback Machine. The Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine preserves images of websites as they appeared at particular points in time. In the case at hand, Marten Transport, Ltd. v. PlattForm Advertising Inc., (D. Kan., Case No. 14-2464-JWL, 4/29/16), Marten sued PlattForm for infringement, alleging that PlattForm had continued to display Marten’s logo on PlattForm’s website after the two had stopped doing business together.
The court determined that testimony from an employee of the Internet Archive concerning the screenshots showing PlattForm’s website at the time in question was enough to meet the standards in Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901.
17 Thursday Mar 2016
Posted in Administrative Law, Corporate Law, Criminal Law, Elder Law, Environment Law, Immigration Law, Intellectual Property, International Law, Law Libraries, Legal Ethics, Research, Trial Tips and Techniques
≈ Comments Off on Free Research Guides from PACE Law School Library.
Research Guides, Pace Law School Library
http://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/index.php
Administrative Law, Bar Exam, Copyright and IP Law, Corporate, Business & Securities Law, Criminal Law and Procedure, Environmental and Energy Law, Health and Elder Law, Immigration Law, International and Foreign Law, Land Use Law, and more. Definitely worth a look. -CCE
08 Sunday Nov 2015
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Intellectual Property, Legal Writing, Legalese, Patent Law, Plain Language, Readability
≈ Comments Off on The Effort to Make and Keep Patents Correct and Clear.
Tags
Dennis Crouch, Intellectual Property, Michelle K. Lee, PatentlyO Blog, Patents, Plain Language, US Patent and Trademark Office
Director Michelle Lee: Moving toward Patent Clarity, posted by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog
The following is a post from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Michelle K. Lee and was published on the PTO Director’s blog.
Patent quality is central to fulfilling a core mission of the USPTO, which as stated in the Constitution, is to ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’ It is critically important that the USPTO issue patents that are both correct and clear. Historically, our primary focus has been on correctness, but the evolving patent landscape has challenged us to increase our focus on clarity.
Patents of the highest quality can help to stimulate and promote efficient licensing, research and development, and future innovation without resorting to needless high-cost court proceedings. Through correctness and clarity, such patents better enable potential users of patented technologies to make informed decisions on how to avoid infringement, whether to seek a license, and/or when to settle or litigate a patent dispute. Patent owners also benefit from having clear notice on the boundaries of their patent rights. After and after successfully reducing the backlog of unexamined patent applications, our agency is redoubling its focus on quality.
We asked for your help on how we can best improve quality—and you responded.
01 Thursday Oct 2015
Posted in Drug Promotion, Government, Health Law, Health Reform, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
≈ Comments Off on Could Lawyers Fix The Rising Cost of Medicine?
Tags
Cancer, FDA, Litigation & Trial, Max Kennerly, Medicaid, Medicare, Pfizer, Prescription Drugs, RICO, Schering–Plough
Send In The Lawyers: A Partial Fix For America’s Dystopian Prescription Drug Market, by Max Kennerly, Esq., Litigation & Trial Blog
It’s hard to read any news about prescription drugs these days without wondering if you’ve somehow fallen into a Philip K. Dick novel. Just look at some of these titles over the past week:
- ‘2 new studies show the FDA is rushing more drugs to market based on shoddy evidence’
- ‘The True Cost of an Expensive Medication’
- ‘U.S. drug company sues Canada for trying to lower cost of $700K-a-year drug’
- ‘Outrage could lead to lowering price of high-cost drugs’
All of these stories are about different drugs, but the common theme among all of the stories is, of course, money. The Mayo Clinical Proceedings recently found ‘In the United States, the average price of cancer drugs for about a year of therapy increased from $5000 to $10,000 before 2000 to more than $100,000 by 2012, while the average household income has decreased by about 8% in the past decade. Further, although 85% of cancer basic research is funded through taxpayers’ money, Americans with cancer pay 50% to 100% more for the same patented drug than patients in other countries.’ . . .
28 Tuesday Jul 2015
Posted in Copyright, Fair Use, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trademarks
≈ Comments Off on How To Take Out Trademark Bullies.
Are Trademark Bullies Bringing Plausible Claims? by Guest Blogger Draeke Weseman, Weseman Law Office, PLLC, Duets Blog
Intellectual property enforcement continues to make news, and new solutions to curb abusive enforcement – i.e. trademark bullying, patent trolling, and copyright trolling – are being proposed regularly. Central to these solutions is the idea of a ‘fast-lane’ that kicks bad claims to the curb before the bullied or trolled party has incurred significant legal costs. . . .
19 Sunday Jul 2015
Posted in Intellectual Property, Trademarks
≈ Comments Off on Does Your Trademark Sell Your Product Or Confuse Your Customers?
At The Corner of Trademarks and Confusion, by Martha Engel, DuetsBlog
http://www.duetsblog.com/2015/07/articles/trademarks/at-the-corner-of-trademarks-and-confusion/
Even in the age of the Internet, the geographic use of a trademark is an important consideration in determining whether your mark is likely to confuse consumers as to the source of your goods or services. . . .
04 Saturday Jul 2015
Posted in 1986 Electronic Communications Act, Computer Forensics, Cybersecurity, Intellectual Property, Internet, Legal Technology, Public Domain
≈ Comments Off on Who Has Your Back – Digitally Speaking?
Tags
1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, beSpacific Blog., Cybersecurity, Government Surveillance, NSA, Privacy, Sabrina I. Pacifici
Report – Who Has Your Digital Back? by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog
http://www.bespacific.com/report-who-has-your-back/
Technology is changing literally all the time. Unfortunately, the law does not. Congress has yet to update the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act. For example, there is no law that emails stored longer than 6 months has the same protection emails stored less than 6 months.
To date, there are no NSA reforms for surveillance of online communication. It is possible that Congress will go farther and mandate “back doors” to allow government to access more digital information. Reports of hackers accessing our financial and private information are no longer surprising. Although companies assure us that our information is secure, is it?
These matters go the heart of digital privacy issues for companies and individuals and FOIA requests. Some of you will be surprised how vulnerable we are. -CCE
30 Tuesday Jun 2015
Posted in Admissibility, Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Evidence, Government, Intellectual Property, iPad, Legal Technology
≈ Comments Off on Are iPad Text Messages Protected Under Your State’s Wiretapping Laws?
Tags
iPad, Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, Privacy, Text Messages, The Democratic Underground.com, Wiretapping
iPad Texts Not Private Under Wiretap Act | The Legal Intelligencer*, The Democratic Underground.com
(The Legal Intelligencer requires subscription but is free for 5/mo articles.)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026893652
iPads are popular in the legal and business world. It would be a good idea to check your state’s wiretapping law and determine whether your client’s and your own text iPad messages have a reasonable expectation to privacy. -CCE
An iPad does not fall within the telephone exemption under the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, and users of the device do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to sending text messages, the state Superior Court has ruled in a case of first impression. . . .
27 Saturday Jun 2015
Posted in Intellectual Property, Legal Ethics, Patent Law, Sanctions
≈ Comments Off on Attorney Fee Awards For Misconduct On A Winning Streak In Federal Court.
Federal Circuit: Bad Lawyering! = Sanctionable Litigation Misconduct, by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog
“The opinion here was authored by Judge Dyk and joined by Chief Judge Prost and Judge Bryson.(Read the decision: Gamma v. CSU).”
Attorney fee awards have been on a hot-streak since the Supreme Court’s 2014 Octane Fitness decision lowering the standard for proving an ‘exceptional case’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Under the statute, a district court judge is empowered to award ‘reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party’ to a patent infringement lawsuit, but only in ‘exceptional cases.’ Id. In Octane Fitness, the Supreme Court gave the lower court fairly wide latitude in deciding exceptional case judgment and the award of fees. In particular, courts are given authority to consider the totality-of-the-circumstances when determining whether a fee award is appropriate. In the parallel case of Highmark, the court held that those lower-court determinations should be given deference on appeal. . . .
24 Wednesday Jun 2015
Posted in Depositions, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Preservation, Spoilation
≈ Comments Off on Spoiled Evidence On Both Sides – What Else Could Go Wrong?
Court Finds Wife Liable for Agent-Husband’s Intentional Deletions, Recommends Default Judgment, by K&L Gates in CASE SUMMARIES
Malibu Media, LLC v. Tashiro, No. 1:13-cv-00205-WTL-MJD, 2015 WL 2371597 (S.D. Ind. May 18, 2015)
In this copyright infringement case, the court found that Defendants ‘spoiled evidence, committed perjury, and failed to discharge their duties to conduct discovery reasonably and in good faith’ and recommended default judgment. Notably, in addition to more familiar issues surrounding the topic of spoliation, the court’s opinion addressed the question of whether spoliation occurs when information is still recoverable (yes) and the propriety of imputing an agent’s bad acts in discovery where, as in this case, Defendant Wife ‘left it to her agent—her husband—to respond to Plaintiff’s document requests.’ . . .
31 Sunday May 2015
Posted in Citations, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Legal Writing, Public Domain, The Bluebook
≈ Comments Off on Is The Bluebook Protected By Copyright?
Tags
ABA Journal, Baby Blue, Copyright Law, Legal Citation, Leslie A. Gordon, Peter Martin, The Bluebook
Legal Minds Differ On Whether The Bluebook Is Subject To Copyright Protection, by Leslie A. Gordon, ABA Journal
Controversy is probably not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of The Bluebook, but the bible of legal citation is at the center of an increasingly nasty dispute over whether it is subject to copyright protection.
Open-source advocates are contending that the style and citation manual is an essential piece of legal infrastructure and can’t be preserved as private property under copyright law. The book’s publishers say otherwise. . . .
19 Sunday Apr 2015
Posted in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trademarks
≈ Comments Off on Intellectual Property Links and Resources.
Patent Litigation – Been Sued or Gotten a Demand Letter? by uspto – United States Patent and Trademark Office Blog
Regardless of whether you are a novice or expert in intellectual property law, you should find this website helpful. It has many FAQs, resources, and other tools to help the inventor and those you work in this area of the law.
Click on http://www.uspto.gov/learning-resources for more links to resources for the legal profession, educators, inventors, and others, including instructions for filing online. Nice laid out, comprehensive, and easy set up alerts for fee and rule changes. Definitely worth a look. -CCE
Answers To Common Questions About Abusive Patent Litigation
Received a letter about or been sued over a patent? You’re in the right place. See below for answers to common questions: (Trademark-related resources) are also available.) . . .
12 Thursday Mar 2015
Posted in Appellate Law, Case of First Impression, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, United States Supreme Court
≈ Comments Off on Patent Law’s Most Influential Supreme Court Decisions From 2005 through 2015.
Most Cited Supreme Court Patent Decisions (2005-2015), by Dennis Crouch, PATENTLYO Blog
The list below considers all of the U.S. Supreme Court patent cases decided during the past decade (Since January 2005) and ranks them according to the number of citations. Citation offers some insight into the influence of decisions, but is obviously limited for a number of reasons. Cases may be cited because of their importance in changing the doctrine (KSR, eBay) or simply as the court’s most recent statement of the law on an important issue (Microsoft v. i4i and KSR) or for a narrow procedural issue that applies in many cases (Unitherm). Bay’s high citation rate is also boosted because its principles have been applied broadly to injunctive relief across many areas of law. Some cases with low citation counts may also have major impacts. They may, for instance impact a small number of very important cases (Caraco) or perhaps they cause folks to change behavior so that the issue stops arising.
With this list we also have the timeline problem where older cases are more likely to be highly cited since there has been more opportunity for those cites. I Alice Corp to rise in the ranks Nautilus and Teva, on the other hand, may well flounder (based upon the Federal Circuit’s treatment of those cases thus far). . . .
18 Wednesday Feb 2015
Posted in Intellectual Property, Litigation, Patent Law
≈ Comments Off on Which Party Bears The Responsibility For The High Cost of Litigation? Plaintiff or Defendant?
Tags
Defendant, Dennis Crouch, Gene Quinn, IP Watchdog, Litigation, Patent Lawsuits, PatentlyO Blog, Plaintiff, Wall Street Journal
Who Is To Blame For High Litigation Costs: Plaintiffs For Filing The Lawsuits Or Defendants For Refusing To Deal And Instead Fighting?, by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog
The recent WSJ op-ed by John Chambers (CEO Cisco) and Myron Ullman (CEO JCPenny) is interesting, but largely not compelling. What the article does do is indicate that patent lawsuits is the avenue being by non-practicing patent holders and it is pretty clear that manufacturers and retailers would be better off (at least in the short term) without being charged with patent infringement. The core of their argument is here:
A 2012 study by Boston University researchers estimated that companies spent upward of $29 billion a year defending patent lawsuits, and the problem has not let up. According to RPX Corp., more than 3,600 companies and named defendants were sued by so-called patent-assertion entities in 2014, triple the number in 2006. Patent-assertion entities—aka non-practicing entities, or as some would call them, trolls—that own patents but do not make products or sell services based on them file more than 60% of patent litigation in the U.S.
A civil lawsuit generally comes about based upon a failure of the parties to negotiate a just solution. Of course, for any given lawsuit, we don’t know beforehand whether it is the plaintiff or the defendant who is being more unreasonable.
The op-ed suggests that the plaintiffs are to blame for filing the lawsuits, but there is also a strongly compelling case for arguing that the defendants are to blame for refusing to deal and instead fighting every lawsuit tooth-and-nail. When reach a point where out-of-litigation resolutions are rare, we should recognize that it is a systemic problem. And, at this point – where the primary complaint is high litigation costs – the solution is not to favor one side or the other, but instead to look for systemic changes that substantially decrease the cost of resolution.
Gene Quinn provides his take on the op-ed at IP Watchdog.
15 Monday Dec 2014
Posted in European Union, France, Germany, Intellectual Property, International Law, Internet, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom
≈ Comments Off on European Countries Fed Up With Google’s Privacy Policy.
Tags
Data Protection, Dutch Privacy Authority, European Union, Google, Privacy policy, United Kingdom
Dutch Authority To Google: Change Privacy Policy Or Else, by Lock Essers, PCWorld
If Google doesn’t change how it handles users’ private data by the end of February, it may face fines of €15 million (about US$18.6 million), the Dutch Privacy Authority said Monday.
Google’s current privacy policy breaches several provisions of the Dutch data protection act, the regulator found in an investigation in 2013. In particular, the probe showed that Google breaches the law when it combines data from different services like search queries, location data and videos watched.
‘Google catches us in an invisible web of our personal data without telling us and without asking us for our consent. This has been ongoing since 2012 and we hope our patience will no longer be tested,’ said Jacob Kohnstamm, chairman of the Dutch DPA.
By the end of February, Google should get ‘unambiguous consent’ from its users before it combines personal data from different Google services to serve targeted ads, the DPA said. This could for instance be achieved by introducing a separate consent window.
Moreover, Google should also give clear and consistent information in its privacy policy to people who use several Google services. . . .
11 Tuesday Nov 2014
Posted in Copyright, Fair Use, Intellectual Property, Public Domain
≈ Comments Off on Copyright Infringement and Fair Use.
Tags
beSpacific Blog., Copyright, Copyright Infringement, Fair Use, Public Domain, Sabrina I. Pacifici, Trademarks
Law Firm Copying and Fair Use: An Examination of Different Purpose and Fair Use Markets, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog
Jones, D. R., Law Firm Copying and Fair Use: An Examination of Different Purpose and Fair Use Markets (September 29, 2014). South Texas Law Review, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2014 – Forthcoming; University of Memphis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 144. Available for download at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2503089
‘In several recent lawsuits, publishers sued law firms for copyright infringement. The lawsuits focused on making unlicensed copies of scholarly articles to file with patent applications, including copies for the firms’ internal use and for the firms’ clients. In two of these cases, lower court judges determined that the making of unlicensed copies was fair use. The decisions hinged on transformative use, focusing on the defendant’s purpose for using the works. There was no alteration or change in the works. The judges found fair use, despite the possible availability of licensing. These patent application cases fit within a larger category of cases involving the use of copyrighted works in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. This article uses these cases as a vehicle to review the use of purpose in fair use analysis. It advocates that the review of the character and purpose of a use should include a deeper examination of the policies and societal interests underlying the use. This broader consideration is especially important if a plaintiff asserts the presence of a ready market for the payment of fees for use of a copyrighted work. This article explores the determination of a fair use market as a way to support the unlicensed use of copyrighted works although a ready market exists for the payment of fees. These cases offer an excellent model for the analysis necessary to determine a fair use market.’
08 Saturday Nov 2014
Posted in Discovery, E-Discovery, Intellectual Property, Motion to Compel, Patent Law, Requests for Production
≈ Comments Off on To Decide Motion To Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Was “Fair.”
Considering Motion to Compel, Court Asks Whether Discovery Responses Have Been “Fair,” by K&L Gates
Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 5:13-cv-03999-BLF, 2014 WL 5321095 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2014)
In this patent infringement case, Defendant objected to ‘producing custodial email from archival systems when [the Plaintiff] is not able to do the same in return.’ Plaintiff filed a motion to compel. In assessing the motion, the court recognized potential limitations on discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). The court indicated that, ‘[r]educed to its essence, Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) [sic] requires this court to decide: have Blue Coat’s discovery responses been fair?’ In response, the court concluded that the defendant’s responses had ‘largely been fair, but not entirely.’ Turning specifically to the question of custodial emails, the court reasoned:
Where Blue Coat has been less than fair is with respect to archival email for its eight custodians. Blue Coat may largely be in the right that it should not have to dig through legacy systems when Finjan is unable to the same for its custodians. But one party’s discovery shortcomings are rarely enough to justify another’s. And here, at least with respect to documents mentioning Finjan—the one specific category of documents Finjan could identify that it needed from archived email—Finjan’s request is reasonable.
A full copy of the court’s opinion is available here.
29 Friday Aug 2014
Posted in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Public Domain
≈ Comments Off on Judge Posner Ends Copyright Protection for Sherlock Holmes.
Judge Posner Solves Sherlock Holmes Copyright Case, by Sabrina I. Pacifici, BeSpacific Blog
Rita Yoon, McDermott Will & Emery: ‘The original character of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes, along with his sidekick, Dr. John H. Watson, are no longer subject to copyright protection. In an opinion by Judge Richard A. Posner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that copyright protection in these century-old literary characters cannot be extended simply by changing their features in later stories. When the original story expires, the characters covered by the expired copyright are ‘fair game’ for follow-on authors. Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd., Case No. 14-1128 (7th Cir., Jun. 16, 2014) (Posner, J.).’
27 Sunday Jul 2014
Posted in 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Fair Use, Intellectual Property
≈ Comments Off on Second Circuit Decision Gives Libraries Full Advantage of Fair Use.
Tags
Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, Fair Use, Google Book Search, Intellectual Property, Libraries, Mass Digitization, Savings Clause, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The library community welcomed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, __ F. 3d __, 2014 WL 2576342 (2nd Cir. 2014). [Note – a copy of the decision is available here via EFF]. The decision has implications for libraries that go far beyond the specific facts of the case. This paper offers some preliminary thoughts on what these implications may be.
The broadest implication of decision arises out of a footnote. Ever since the adoption of the library exceptions in 17 U.S.C. § 108, rights holders have argued that section 108 limits the availability of fair use to libraries, notwithstanding the savings clause in section 108(f)(4) that states explicitly that ‘nothing in this section in any way affects the right of fair use as provided by section 107.’ In this litigation, the Authors Guild repeatedly argued that section 108 restricted fair use. Judge Baer rejected this argument in the district court, and the Second Circuit rejected it again in footnote 4. Citing the savings clause, the Second Circuit stated that ‘we do not construe § 108 as foreclosing our analysis of the Libraries’ activities under fair use….’ HathiTrust at *4, n. 4. Thus, the decision holds unambiguously that libraries may take full advantage of the fair use right.
The decision also demonstrates how the fair use right applies in the context of a specific library activity: mass digitization. . . .
20 Sunday Jul 2014
Posted in Bad Legal Writing, Computer Forensics, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Computer Virus, Copyright, Criminal Law, Cybersecurity, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, Discovery, Encryption, Evidence, Finance and Banking Law, Fraud, Google, Government, Identity Theft, Intellectual Property, Law Office Management, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Legalese, Malware, Management, Patent Law, PC Computers, Plain Language, Presentations, Search Engines, Trial Tips and Techniques, Trojans, Video
≈ Comments Off on 10 Top Law-Related TED Videos.
Tags
Copyright, Crime, Eyewitness, Fashion Industry, Government, Internet, Legal Productivity Blog, Legalese, Patent Troll, Plain Language, TED, Tim Baran
Top 10 Legal TED Talks, by Tim Baran, Legal Productivity Blog
http://www.legalproductivity.com/op-ed/top-10-legal-ted-talks/
Have you heard of TED? It began in 1984 as a conference and now covers a wide range of topics in more than 100 languages. Think of it as a massive brain trust that shares great ideas and information.
Each of the law-related TED talks listed in this article are worthwhile on their own: (1) four ways to fix a broken legal system; (2) eliminate legalese by using plain English; (3) how to beat a patent troll; (4) how the Internet will change government; (5) laws that choke creativity; (6) copyright law; (7) why eyewitnesses get it wrong; (8) how technology could make crime worse; (9) the Internet and anonymity online; and (10) how great leaders inspire. -CCE
01 Tuesday Jul 2014
Posted in Android Phones, Apple, Blackberry Phones, Cell Phones, Clouds, Computer Forensics, Confidentiality, Cybersecurity, Disaster Preparedness, Emails, Encryption, Google, Intellectual Property, iPad, iPhones, Law Office Management, Legal Blogs, Legal Ethics, Legal Technology, Mac, Management, Marketing, Passwords, PC Computers, Social Media, Supervising Support Staff, Tablets, Technology, Using Social Media
≈ Comments Off on Is It Time For A “Bring Your Own Device” Policy for Your Law Office?
Tags
Apple, Blackberry Phone, Cell Phones, Confidentiality, Curo Legal Blog, Cybersecurity, iPads, iPhones, Legal Ethics, Mobile Device Policy, Passwords, Tablets, Will Harrelson
Mobile Device Security for Lawyers: How Solos and Small Firms can Ethically Allow Bring Your Own Device, by Will Harrelson, Curo Legal Blog (with hat tip to Jeff Richardson, iPhone J.D. Blog!)
The Start of Bring Your Own Device Policies
It really is the iPhone’s fault. Yes, Apple is to blame for designing the most desirable piece of technology of the last decade. So desirable, in fact, that employees of all stripes requested (and, often, begged) their IT departments to toss the increasingly-‘corporate’ Blackberry out the window and allow the use of their personal iPhones for corporate emails and calls. As a result, we have been living in the age of ‘Bring Your Own Device’ where employees use a single personal mobile phone (or tablet) for both their personal email, texting, and social media while also using it for work email, word processing, and other enterprise applications.
Before the Bring Your Own Device era, a company’s greatest out-of-office security concern was an employee who left a briefcase in a taxi. Today, the worry is an employee misplacing a device the size of wallet containing almost limitless amounts of data that criminals or hackers would easily and quickly exploit if given the chance. Clearly, there is an obvious financial motivation for all businesses to protect their own or customer’s sensitive data.
However, lawyers face particular ethical consequences if they fail to take reasonable efforts to either investigate the technologies that they implement or protect their client’s confidential information. . . .
11 Wednesday Jun 2014
Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent Law
≈ Comments Off on How Essential Are Graphics To The Judge And Jury In A Patent Trial?
Tags
Cogent Legal Blog, Hon. James Ware, Hon. Paul Grewal, Intellectual Property, Michael Kelleher, Patent Law, Trial Graphics, Trial Tips & Techniques
The Need for Graphics in a Patent Trial, and Other Insights from Judges, by Michael Kelleher, Cogent Legal Blog
Good graphics are critical for understanding patent cases. I mean real graphics, pictures, not just words on a PowerPoint. Seeing an illustration or an animation in a trial or a mediation is key to understanding the technology in a patent. − Hon. James Ware
After deliberations have finished, I’ve seen that the pictures were important to jurors because the whiteboards in the jury room often have the jurors’ reproductions of the pictures and diagrams that the attorneys used during trial. The juries are not writing out the long claims of the patents. Instead, they discuss the case in abstractions using those pictures from trial. − Hon. Paul Grewal
These judicial observations on graphics in patent trials came from a judges’ panel at last weekend’s Annual Meeting of the San Francisco Intellectual Property Law Association (SFIPLA) in Healdsburg, California. As usual, the annual meeting provided wonderful opportunities to learn about recent developments in intellectual property law and to network and relax with leading IP attorneys and judges. . . .
07 Saturday Jun 2014
Posted in Appellate Law, Intellectual Property, Patent Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Courts of Appeal
≈ Comments Off on Interesting Analysis of Federal Patent Appeal
Tags
Administrative Patent Challenges, Consumer Watchdog, Dan Ravicher, Inter Partes Reexamination, Patent Act
Federal Circuit: In Order To Appeal USPTO Post-Grant Decision, Third Party Requestor Must Show “Injury In Fact” by Dennis Crouch, Patently-O Blog
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/06/circuit-decision-requestor.html
Consumer Watchdog v. WARF and USPTO (Fed. Cir. 2014)
The Patent Act provides for a variety of administrative review proceedings that can be filed by any third party wanting to challenge the validity of an issued patent. The statute also provides the third-party requester with a right to appeal any adverse judgment to the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit. Following these statutory guidelines, Consumer Watchdog requested review (inter partes reexamination) of WARF’s patents covering human embryonic stem cells. When the USPTO sided with WARF, Consumer Watchdog appealed. But Consumer Watchdog has a major problem with its appeal – standing. Consumer Watchdog is a public interest group who is not being directly impacted by WARFs patents other than the general indignity felt by all of us.
As the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Already v. Nike and reminded courts that, under the Constitution, they only have power over actual cases and controversies. At Patently-O, we used that case as a springboard for questioning whether the statutory appellate authority was sufficient to satisfy the demands of the Constitution, and the Court immediately called for Consumer Watchdog and WARF to brief the question of standing. . . .
