http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1396.Opinion.2-13-2015.1.PDF
"Just because an embodiment does not
expressly disclose a feature does not mean that embodiment
excludes that feature."
"However, in a case such as
this, where the patent describes multiple embodiments,
every claim does not need to cover every embodiment."
Friday, February 20, 2015
Thursday, February 19, 2015
LTE standards
http://www.3gpp.org/technologies/keywords-acronyms/98-lte
http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/mobile/long-term-evolution
http://www.whatsag.com/G/Understanding_LTE.php
file:///C:/Users/mp071953/Downloads/the-lte-standard.pdf
http://www.comsocscv.org/docs/Talk_111109_MobileBroadband.pdf
http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/110711-what-is-lte
http://www.unwiredinsight.com/2012/3gpp-lte-releases
http://lte-tdd.org/
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/lte-long-term-evolution/lte-fdd-tdd-duplex.php
http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/mobile/long-term-evolution
http://www.whatsag.com/G/Understanding_LTE.php
file:///C:/Users/mp071953/Downloads/the-lte-standard.pdf
http://www.comsocscv.org/docs/Talk_111109_MobileBroadband.pdf
http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/110711-what-is-lte
http://www.unwiredinsight.com/2012/3gpp-lte-releases
http://lte-tdd.org/
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/lte-long-term-evolution/lte-fdd-tdd-duplex.php
Monday, February 16, 2015
SS10. Basic exercise
- If notice is delivered in person or by certified mail with return receipt request, notice will be effective.
--> Notice will be effective only if it is delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested.
- The court should presume that the administrator's functions have ceased only when evidence proves it.
--> Without contrary proof, the court should presume that the administrator's functions continue.
- If the administrator reviews the application and finds that it contain all the requisite materials, termination will be approved.
--> Termination will be approved only after the administrator reviews the application and finds it complete.
--> Notice will be effective only if it is delivered in person or by certified mail, return receipt requested.
- The court should presume that the administrator's functions have ceased only when evidence proves it.
--> Without contrary proof, the court should presume that the administrator's functions continue.
- If the administrator reviews the application and finds that it contain all the requisite materials, termination will be approved.
--> Termination will be approved only after the administrator reviews the application and finds it complete.
SS 9. Basic exercise
1. The court relied heavily on the district court's statement that (1) the would-be intervenors retained the right to appear through counsel, to participate in the fairness hearing, to conduct discovery, and (2) they had standing to appeal the court's approval or disapproval of the class-action settlement.
2. the identify of the parties
3. (1) is ongoing, (2) implicates ... , (3) affords
2. the identify of the parties
3. (1) is ongoing, (2) implicates ... , (3) affords
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Monday, February 09, 2015
Friday, February 06, 2015
ss 8, writing exercise
- 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.
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)