- The plaintiff testified and so did three witnesses on behalf of the corporation.
Answer) After the plaintiff testified, three witnesses testified for the corporation.
- The court should decide this purely legal question.
Answer) The court decides this purely legal question.
- The court should deny M's motion ...
Answer) The court should deny McCormick’s motion for partial summary judgment on the duty to defend.
- The court may disregard plaintiff's opposition because it violates ...
Answer) The court should disregard Thompson’s opposition because it violates California Rule of Court 313.
Friday, February 06, 2015
Thursday, February 05, 2015
IN RE CUOZZO SPEED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1301.Opinion.2-2-2015.1.PDF
Contrary to Cuozzo’s contention, we hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR. We affirm the Board’s final determination, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Board’s obviousness determination, and the Board’s denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend.
Contrary to Cuozzo’s contention, we hold that we lack jurisdiction to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR. We affirm the Board’s final determination, finding no error in the Board’s claim construction under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the Board’s obviousness determination, and the Board’s denial of Cuozzo’s motion to amend.
Wednesday, February 04, 2015
ss7 writing exercise
- 1. Ms. L… accrued considerable debt to her family and others, during her struggle to provide for her children as a single parent.
---> While struggling as a single parent to provide for her children, Ms. L… accrued considerable debt to her family and others.
- 2. Chesapeake incorrectly asserts that it is not a proper defendant in this case, and, therefore, that relief cannot be granted.
---> Chesapeake incorrectly asserts that it is not a proper defendant in this case, and that therefore relief cannot be granted.
- 3. The court ruled that Office McGee’s primary role is not law enforcement because he was acting more as a school employee than as a police officer.
- --> Finding that Officer McGee was acting more as a school employee than as a police officer in searching Robinson, the court ruled that an official's primary role is not law enforcement.
Monday, February 02, 2015
P.21 ss6 writing exercise
1. Appellee Allied Indemnity of New York respectfully suggests that oral argument should not be allowed because the Texas Supreme Court (in National Union case) and this Court (in Constitution State case) decided dispositive issue.
Also, the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments.
Oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
--> Oral argument would be of little benefit for two reasons. First, the dispositive issue has recently been decided by the Texas Supreme Court ( ) and by this Court ( ). Second, the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the record.
2. No Kansas cases explicitly held that a corporation is required to have a valid business purpose to engage in certain transactions like mergers, consolidations, or a sale of assets followed by a dissolution and liquidation. But, in a 1994 case involving a cash-out merger where the dissenters claimed the defendant's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the dissenters, the Supreme Court of Kansas cited as one of the trial court's holdings that a corporation does not need to show a valid corporate purpose of eliminating stockholders. (88 words)
Answer) No Kansas cases explicitly hold that Kansas requires a corporation to have a valid business purpose to engage in certain specified transactions. But in 1994 the Supreme Court of Kansas decided a case that bears on the question. The case involved a cash-out merger in which the dissenters claimed that the defendant's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to them. The court found that a corporation need not show a valid corporate purpose of eliminating stockholders.
3. The court of appeals noted that the EPA had issued a permit for the applicant to discharge wastewater that would occur from the outfall pipe. Holders of the permit are generally exempted from complying with the EIS requirement. Accordingly, the Corps, a holder of the permit, did not need to analyze the environmental implications of the discharges from the outfall pipe and instead considered only the construction and maintenance of the pipeline itself. The court held that the issuance of the permit is not a major federal action.
--> The court of appeals cited two salient points.
Also, the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments.
Oral argument would not significantly aid the decisional process.
--> Oral argument would be of little benefit for two reasons. First, the dispositive issue has recently been decided by the Texas Supreme Court ( ) and by this Court ( ). Second, the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and the record.
2. No Kansas cases explicitly held that a corporation is required to have a valid business purpose to engage in certain transactions like mergers, consolidations, or a sale of assets followed by a dissolution and liquidation. But, in a 1994 case involving a cash-out merger where the dissenters claimed the defendant's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to the dissenters, the Supreme Court of Kansas cited as one of the trial court's holdings that a corporation does not need to show a valid corporate purpose of eliminating stockholders. (88 words)
Answer) No Kansas cases explicitly hold that Kansas requires a corporation to have a valid business purpose to engage in certain specified transactions. But in 1994 the Supreme Court of Kansas decided a case that bears on the question. The case involved a cash-out merger in which the dissenters claimed that the defendant's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to them. The court found that a corporation need not show a valid corporate purpose of eliminating stockholders.
3. The court of appeals noted that the EPA had issued a permit for the applicant to discharge wastewater that would occur from the outfall pipe. Holders of the permit are generally exempted from complying with the EIS requirement. Accordingly, the Corps, a holder of the permit, did not need to analyze the environmental implications of the discharges from the outfall pipe and instead considered only the construction and maintenance of the pipeline itself. The court held that the issuance of the permit is not a major federal action.
--> The court of appeals cited two salient points.
P.18 writing exercise. ss5
1. Even if the fog caused injury to Roelke, Amskills had no duty to prevent the injury that Amskills could not have been expected to foresee.
--> Even assuming that the fog caused Roelke's accident, Amskills had no duty to prevent such a freakish and unforeseeable injury.
2. Before the initial offering, the underwriters, any officers, directors, or employees did not know any facts suggesting that "Palm Harbor" could not be completed on schedule and in accordance with specifications.
--> Before the initial offering, no one knew or had reason to know that Palm Harbor could not be timely completed in accordance with specifications.
3. Beale failed to allege facts to establish that competition among the nation's law schools would be reduced or that the public has been in any way injured. Thus, her restraint-of-trade claim would be dismissed.
--> Beale has not alleged facts that, if true, would establish either public injury or reduced competition among the nation's law schools. Thus, her restraint-of-trade claim must be dismissed.
4. The Business Corporation law address that a New York corporation indemnifies only its employees.
--> The Business Corporation law does not address whether a New York corporation can indemnify nonemployees.
5. The court stated that a duty to disclose the illegal conduct of persons who seek election to a public office through political campaigns exists in only a few instances of the cases it examined.
--> The court examined many cases and found few that imposed a duty to disclose the illegal conduct of candidates for elected office.
--> Even assuming that the fog caused Roelke's accident, Amskills had no duty to prevent such a freakish and unforeseeable injury.
2. Before the initial offering, the underwriters, any officers, directors, or employees did not know any facts suggesting that "Palm Harbor" could not be completed on schedule and in accordance with specifications.
--> Before the initial offering, no one knew or had reason to know that Palm Harbor could not be timely completed in accordance with specifications.
3. Beale failed to allege facts to establish that competition among the nation's law schools would be reduced or that the public has been in any way injured. Thus, her restraint-of-trade claim would be dismissed.
--> Beale has not alleged facts that, if true, would establish either public injury or reduced competition among the nation's law schools. Thus, her restraint-of-trade claim must be dismissed.
4. The Business Corporation law address that a New York corporation indemnifies only its employees.
--> The Business Corporation law does not address whether a New York corporation can indemnify nonemployees.
5. The court stated that a duty to disclose the illegal conduct of persons who seek election to a public office through political campaigns exists in only a few instances of the cases it examined.
--> The court examined many cases and found few that imposed a duty to disclose the illegal conduct of candidates for elected office.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Headings for email memo
Issue and Answer,
Summary of Law,
Impact on Client
source: http://sites.utexas.edu/legalwriting/
Summary of Law,
Impact on Client
source: http://sites.utexas.edu/legalwriting/
Writing exercise ss 3.
1)
In March 2000, Gilbert Spaulding applied to the
Workforce Commission for extended unemployment benefits. Because those benefits were not available
during the period for which he sought eligibility, the Workforce Commission
denied Spaulding’s request and the lower court correctly affirmed the denial.
(
M. Answer) In March 2000, Gilbert Spaulding applied to the Workforce Commission for extended unemployment benefits. The commission denied the request because those benefits were not available during the period for which he sought eligibility. The trial court affirmed.
2)
The plaintiff, Pilsen Corporation, had only
requested a partial summary judgment on the discrete issue of fraud. The intermediate appellate court affirmed the
lower court’s grant of the summary judgment.
However, the state supreme court reversed the affirmation.
M. Answer) Plaintiff, Pilsen Corporation, moved for a partial summary judgment on the discrete issue of fraud. The trial court affirmed the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. On further appeal, however, the state supreme court reversed.
3)
For three years Davis Energy has had a guard . .
. own property. Under these circumstances, the issue is
whether …
M. Answer) Davis Energy owns a fuel-storage yard that can be reached only by a private road. For seven years, owners of adjacent lots have used the road to reach their property. For the past three years, Davis has had a guard at the road's entrance but has posted no other notice about private property or permission to enter. Has Davis, through its actions or silence, granted its neighbors an easement to use the road?
4)
Before 1958, the plaintiff Los Angeles Dodgers,
the owner of a professional baseball team, played baseball in Brooklyn, New
York, under the name “the Brooklyn Dodgers.”
In 1958, the plaintiff had offices in Los Angles, California, where it has
played baseball since then.
M. Answer) Plaintiff Los Angeles Dodgers, a corporation owning a professional baseball team, began in New York as the Brooklyn Dodgers. In 1958, the team moved the site of its home games from New York to California and changed its names to the Los Angeles Dodgers. The organization's principal corporate offices are now in Los Angeles.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Thursday, January 15, 2015
To the extent it is determined to be necessary to include A in B,
Patent No. 6,071,103
Petition For Inter Partes Review
Although not believed to be real-parties-in-interest in the present Petition, out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner notes that it expects that a substantially similar petition is being filed by Nissan North America, Inc. To the extent it is determined to be necessary to include parties interested in that petition in the present Petition, the additional real-parties-in-interest are listed in the contemporaneously filed petition by Nissan North America, Inc. et al.
Petition For Inter Partes Review
Although not believed to be real-parties-in-interest in the present Petition, out of an abundance of caution, Petitioner notes that it expects that a substantially similar petition is being filed by Nissan North America, Inc. To the extent it is determined to be necessary to include parties interested in that petition in the present Petition, the additional real-parties-in-interest are listed in the contemporaneously filed petition by Nissan North America, Inc. et al.
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Friday, January 09, 2015
Thursday, January 08, 2015
Wednesday, January 07, 2015
102 - Anticipation
2131 Anticipation — Application of 35 U.S.C.
102 [R-11.2013]
A claimed invention may be rejected under 35
U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is
“not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as
prior art. To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must
teach every element of the claim.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “When a claim covers several
structures or compositions, either generically or as
alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any
of the structures or compositions within the scope
of the claim is known in the prior art.” Brown v.
3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a
computer clock to an offset time to address the Year
2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year
date data in “at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or
four-digit” representations, was held anticipated by
a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit
formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. “The identical
invention must be shown in as complete detail as is
contained in the ... claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913,
1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be
arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an
ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology
is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15
USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some
circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP
§ 2131.01.
102 [R-11.2013]
A claimed invention may be rejected under 35
U.S.C. 102 when the invention is anticipated (or is
“not novel”) over a disclosure that is available as
prior art. To anticipate a claim, the disclosure must
teach every element of the claim.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every
element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of
California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051,
1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “When a claim covers several
structures or compositions, either generically or as
alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any
of the structures or compositions within the scope
of the claim is known in the prior art.” Brown v.
3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a
computer clock to an offset time to address the Year
2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year
date data in “at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or
four-digit” representations, was held anticipated by
a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit
formats). See also MPEP § 2131.02. “The identical
invention must be shown in as complete detail as is
contained in the ... claim.” Richardson v. Suzuki
Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913,
1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be
arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an
ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology
is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15
USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Note that, in some
circumstances, it is permissible to use multiple references in a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. See MPEP
§ 2131.01.
2131.05 Nonanalogous
or Disparaging Prior Art [R-08.2012]
“Arguments that the alleged anticipatory prior art is
‘nonanalogous art’ or ‘teaches away from the invention’ or is not recognized as
solving the problem solved by the claimed invention, [are] not ‘germane’ to a
rejection under section 102.”
Twin Disc, Inc.v. United
States , 231 USPQ 417, 424 (Cl. Ct. 1986)
(quoting In re Self, 671 F .2d
1344, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA 1982)). See also State Contracting & Eng’ g Corp.
v. Condotte America, Inc., 346
F .3d 1057, 1068, 68 USPQ2d 1481, 1488 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(The question of whether a reference is analogous art is not relevant to
whether that reference anticipates. A reference may be directed to an entirely
different problem than the one addressed by the inventor, or may be from an
entirely different field of endeavor than that of the claimed invention, yet
the reference is still anticipatory if it explicitly or inherently discloses
every limitation recited in the claims.).
A reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the
invention, the reference then disparages it. The question whether a reference
“teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis.
Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F .3d 1354, 1361, 47
USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The prior art was held to anticipate the
claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a
modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does
not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”). See Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab,
LLC, 412 F .3d
1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed composition that
expressly excluded an ingredient held anticipated by reference composition that
optionally included that same ingredient); see also Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO,
Inc., 190 F .3d
1342, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Claimed composition was anticipated
by prior art reference that inherently met claim limitation of “sufficient
aeration” even though reference taught away from air entrapment or purposeful
aeration.).
Monday, January 05, 2015
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Double Patenting
- Types of Double Patenting Rejections
nStatutory (35 U.S.C. 101) Double Patenting:
n Is There an Embodiment that Falls Within the
Scope of One Claim, but Not the Other?
n Could One Claim be Literally Infringed
Without Literally Infringing the Other Claim?
--> If Examined
claim and claim of potentially conflicting patent or application DO NOT
exactly match in scope – DO
NOT make a statutory (35
U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection.
nNon-Statutory Double Patenting
nRejection
based on obviousness analysis
nAnalogous
to 35 U.S.C. 103 Analysis
nDetermine
the Scope and Content of the Claims in the Conflicting Patent or Application
nAscertain
the Differences Between the Claims in the Conflicting Patent or Application and
the Claim in Issue
nResolve
the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
nEvaluate
Evidence of Secondary Considerations
nRejection
based on anticipation analysis
nNon-Statutory
Double Patenting Based Solely on Improper Timewise Extension of Patent Rights
* 35 U.S.C. 121 does not prohibit the rejection because xxx patent is a CIP of xxx patent. If it is a divisional, a non-statutory DP rejection would not be proper.
Obviousness Analysis –
Written Rejection
nAny Non-Statutory Double Patenting Rejection
Based on an Obviousness Analysis Should Make Clear:
nThe
differences between a claim in the examined application compared to a claim in
the reference patent (or copending application)
nThe
reasons for concluding that the invention defined in the claim at issue would
have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the
patent (or copending application)
How to Overcome a Proper
Double Patenting Rejection
n Statutory (35 U.S.C. 101) Double Patenting
nAmend
the claim(s)
nCancel
the claim(s)
nA
terminal disclaimer is NOT sufficient to overcome such a
rejection
nDeclarations
under 37 CFR 1.131 are NOT
sufficient to overcome such a rejection
n Non-Statutory Double Patenting (All Types)
nAmend
the claim(s)
nCancel
the claim(s)
nFile
a proper terminal disclaimer
nDeclarations
under 37 CFR 1.131 are NOT
sufficient to overcome such a rejection
Friday, October 17, 2014
"Based on" vs. "On the basis of"
The phrases based on and on the basis of are often used interchangeably but should not be, because based on is a participle (a verbal adjective), which can define a noun, pronoun and noun phrase (but not a verb) whereas on the basis of is a prepositional phrase, which can define a verb. Examples of the different information transmitted by their correct usage are [The administration sent a document based on your suggestion] and [The administration sent a document on the basis of your suggestion]. In the former, based on rightly describes the nearest noun (a document) and so tells us that you had something to do with the content of the document; in the latter, on the basis of describes the verb (to send) and tells us that the idea of sending the document (rather than perhaps taking it in person) was yours.
http://www.asiaandro.com/ec/EC4.pdf
http://www.asiaandro.com/ec/EC4.pdf
Thursday, August 28, 2014
MS Word shortcut - indent and others
- Ctrl+M / Ctrl+Shift+M : increase / decrease indent
- Tab: Go to the ‘File’ tab, and click on ‘Options’. From the list on the left, choose ‘Proofing’. Now, under ‘AutoCorrect options’, click on the ‘AutoCorrect Options…’ button. In the window which appears, click on the ‘AutoFormat As You Type’ tab. Select the ‘Set left- and first-indent with tabs and backspaces’ checkbox. Press the ‘OK’ button twice, and you’re done!
- For anyone who cares, to change list level up, ALT+SHIFT+Right Arrow. To change it down a level, ALT+SHIFT+Left Arrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)