Gideon's Trumpet

A history of the landmark case of James Earl Gideon's fight for the right to legal counsel. Notes, table of cases, index. The classic backlist bestseller. More than 800,000 sold since its first pub date of 1964.

Price: $15.00

Click here to buy from Amazon

Houston, we have a problem ... *

Posted on 9. January 2009 by Philip Mann

Count me among the latest issue, on the Eastern District of Texas to is still the meeting place for putting the complainant's patent litigation.? A "Rocket Docket" it ain't.

We have made a fair number of cases in the East District over the years.? Even if the thing is used to move with the dispatch of one of our most recent was the first available date for a Markman hearing June 2010.??In another case, we are waiting for a preliminary ruling Markman after consultation in April 2007.

And check this apparently routine order we just received.? It requires basic requesting consent prior to the submission of a whole host of draft resolutions and on the front page clearly states the measures necessary for the "due to the large number of patent litigation pending on the Court's docket."

It is no doubt of the Eastern District well deserved reputation as a fair and friendly forum for hearing patent litigation.? But I suspect that there may be too much of a good thing. Backlog was probably inevitable.

* Yes, I am aware of Houston not actually in the East District.? Just could not resist the cheap humour.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.iplitigationblog.com/admin/trackback/104134

View the original article here

Who is driving the cost of process? (Or "maybe the recession's worse than we should!")

Home > articles > who the driving of the costs of the process? (Or "maybe the recession's worse than we should!")Posted on 12. February 2010 of Philip Mann

As to the quota-fee lawyers and alleged "patent trolls" to start, my colleagues and I blamed for many of the ills plaguing society.? It is, we are not the get paid unless we are successful--who file profit-slight cases prolong litigation, wasting resources and cause innocent defendants pay their lawyers up by two million dollars on average to defend themselves.? It is a strange we sleep at night.

These ideas brought an admittedly complacent butter my face as I received recent decision of Federal Circuit confirms Distriktsdomstolens denial of fees in case we handled that never should have gone for as long as it did.

Now, in fairness, we lost the case on the merits, District held the patent invalid and we took our lumps, which we knew we perhaps when we went.? No complaints there.

Not satisfied with their victory, our opponents are moved for fees.? No complaint as it is, again, their right to ask.

What I find funny is that our opponents have selected reject our early offer for a "walk away" settlement, chose to file a desperate appeal of Distriktsdomstolens denial of fees and--most amusingly--3000 miles each way to deliver a vain 15 minute oral argument against an opponent who was even there.? (We will be the wastrels, we were elected to waive oral argument and rest on our map.)

So there you have it.? A cost-based company will happily spend thousands of dollars of its client money to travel 3,000 miles to argue against an empty chair, but is it the guys who run contingent fee up the costs of the proceedings.

Yeah, someone should really do something about us.

View the original article here

C.A. tosses suit alleged system to steal customer Prosecutor

server temporarily unavailable
Metropolitan News-EnterpriseWednesday, December 29, 2010Page 1C.A. Tosses Suit Alleging Scheme to Steal Attorney?s ClientBy STEVEN M. ELLIS, Staff WriterThe Third District Court of Appeal yesterday published its decision tossing an attorney?s lawsuit accusing co-counsel he brought in on a personal injury case of scheming to steal the client and take his share of fees.The court ruled Dec. 10 that Westlake Village attorney Christopher J. Olsen might be able to bring an unjust enrichment action against the client who fired him, but not against Sacramento attorney Joseph F. Harbison III, who agreed to a 60/40 percent split of fees with Olsen in the contingency case, and later succeeded him.The justices said that the litigation privilege barred use of Harbison?s statements to support Olsen?s allegations that Harbison used fraud and deceit to induce Olsen to associate him into the case. They also held that the privilege barred an action for interference with contractual relations, and they concluded that Olsen could no longer sue Harbison for breaching the agreement once he had been discharged.Olsen sued Harbison when the underlying case, involving an injury client Kathleen Klawitter suffered at a golf course, settled for $775,000. Klawitter, who retained Olsen in 1998, fired him and signed a new fee agreement with Harbison in 2002, just weeks after Olsen agreed to associate Harbison into the case.The attorney said later that he would never have brought Harbison into the case had he been aware of what he said were Harbison?s true intentions.Sacramento Superior Court Judge Judy Holzer Hersher sustained Harbison?s demurrer to a quantum meruit action, and she granted summary judgment against Olsen on claims for breach of contract, fraud and deceit and intentional interference with contractual relationship.On Olsen?s appeal, the Third District affirmed in an opinion by Presiding Justice Vance W. Raye, who rejected Olsen?s claim for $310,000 for the value of work he performed. Noting that one attorney may be able to proceed against another in quantum meruit if the client never approved a fee-splitting agreement, the justice said that changed when a client agreed to the association and consented to the fee division, as Olsen and Harbison?s client had done.Raye wrote that Olsen?s claim that Harbison committed fraud and deceit by inducing Olsen to hire him, when Harbison?s true intent was to persuade the client to fire Olsen and hire Harbison, was barred by the litigation privilege because the intent of the allegedly fraudulent communications was to secure the services of counsel.?[D]efendant made his comments when discussing the possibility of becoming associated in on the Klawitter case,? he said. ?This conversation was part of plaintiff?s efforts to bring in experienced counsel to assist on the case, take responsibility for the actual trial, and help Klawitter obtain a verdict or settlement. Had there been no litigation, these comments would never have been made.?Raye reasoned that the litigation privilege barred Olsen?s claim against Harbison for interference with Olsen?s contract with the client, rejecting Olsen?s assertion that a plaintiff and a defendant had to be adverse parties at the time of the communication for the privilege to apply.The justice also wrote that Olsen could not enforce the fee-sharing contract once the client terminated his services.?When the Klawitter-plaintiff contract ceased to exist, the fee-sharing agreement between plaintiff and defendant, premised on that agreement, also ceased to exist,? he said. ?There was no viable contract on which to base a breach of contract claim against defendant.?Justices Harry Hull and Tani Cantil-Sakauye?who was ceremonially sworn in as California?s 28th chief justice Dec. 3, and is scheduled to take office next Monday?joined Raye in his opinion.The case is Olsen v. Harbison, 10 S.O.S. 7162.Copyright 2010, Metropolitan News Company

View the original article here

Any other ...

Posted on november 29, 2005 by Philip Mann

get the sense that the patent system is facing serious problems these days?

When I got in this game in 1983, the newly formed then the Federal Circuit in order to bring consistency, predictability, and even respectability to the patent system. And it did--for a while.

Under the former Chief Judge Markey, the Federal Circuit decisions sense. They are used and relied on written statutes--you know the type of actually adopted by Congress and signed by the Chairman and all. They are further processed, are important issues of patent law and gave clear, practical answers that could be understood and applied in the future. (I agree not always with you, but at least you were able to understand and use them). And most importantly decisions appeared to be part of a genuine effort to build a consistent, usable and fair body of law which would resolve disputes fairly and promote innovation, as determined by the Constitution.

In the last several years, I have wondered whether we want to forward or backward. Is it just me or is there anyone else go crazy trying to figure out what the Federal Circuit does?

The good news is that the Supreme Court has taken up the eBay case and granted cert. The question is, as I understand it, is whether the courts should grant a permanent injunction automatically when the infringement is found. Personally, I think they should--exclusive use is the essence of any property. But the real meaning is the Supreme Court's willingness to provide oversight of the Federal Circuit.

Recently, also a petition to the cert was lodged in the proceedings, Phillips. Dennis Crouch has a copy of the petition on its Openly O blog. It is interesting reading. I sincerely hope, the Supreme Court will take the case. The reality, as all three judge panel of the Federal Circuit can be effectively overrule the factual results of a lower instance without any shows clear error and simply because the Panel wants a different result, contrary to the idea that we are a nation of laws. Petition in what I see as a bold step, in fact, notes, have net revenue for itself the only power at the end of the day, in order to decide what patent claims mean, the Federal Circuit is unlikely on its own to abandon the flow--hence the need for the Supreme Court intervention. (I love it when other people have the courage to say what the rest of us are thinking!) The idea that claim construction is solely a question of law, devoid of factual foundation is a farce and a scam and should be discarded. (In my opinion, it is also against the seventh amendment but that is another issue. And Yes, I am aware that the Supreme Court in Markman said otherwise.)

Finally, in my own small way I, on behalf of one of the clients are looking for because the banc review [download file] of a negative decision I received from the German Circuit last month. In that case, the Federal Circuit was shot down one of our claims that's missing the written description, even if the elements themselves claim was all indisputable described and the claim itself originally filed a claim, which was authorized and issued without amendments. I am admittedly biased, but honestly believe the Federal Circuit ruling simply cannot be reconciled with the prior CCPA precedent holding as originally filed claims automatically with the written description and that "nothing more is needed." See in re Gardner, 475 f. 2d 1389, 1391 (CCPA 1973). The good news is that the petition has not been denied summary as usually happens. The Federal Circuit has requested and received a response from my worthy opponents. So far, there have been no decision yet on whether to grant the petition. The current legislation relating to the requirement of the "written description" is, to put it politely, confused, I am confident the Court will soon take up the matter since the banc, preferably in my case, but if not, in another.

View the original article here

People who Have Been Hurt need a personal injury Attorney

People who were injured need all the help I can begin to receive the compensation they deserve for the injuries they suffered. A lawyer can be essential for this action, the reasons behind using a lawyer may have an effect on the lawyer that you choose. Here are some fundamental reasons why people need a personal injury lawyer and how they can help in choosing appropriate representation.

Experience
Personal injury lawyers know the intricacies of personal injury claims. They have the experience to assess cases and leave a customer know if it will even be worth registering a complaint. There is no use in someone spend money in a case that has no potential to be won.

Paperwork
An experienced personal injury lawyer knows that the documentation needs to be filed. This is not a task that can usually be handled by someone without the knowledge of which forms must be completed and how to complete them.

Research Skills
To win a case of bodily injury, there will be aspects of the case that will require research. Typically, an experienced lawyer will have available a team of researchers that will provide the facts needed to win a case.

Objective Opinion
An experienced lawyer will be able to advise a client sensibly, even if the client believes they deserve something different. For example, a client may want a quick payback, but it may be in your best interest to expect things and receive a higher resolution.

Opposing lawyers
Without adequate representation, the plaintiff may almost be eaten alive by a strong lawyer on the other side. Having an attorney who is accustomed to dealing with their peers is an asset that needs any submission of a case of bodily injury.

Experience with insurance companies
Much as opposing lawyers, who does not deal with insurance companies on a regular basis may have a difficult time. Leave a lawyer dealing with an insurance company will prevent the insurance company by pressing them in an amount that is much smaller than they should begin.

Settlements
Only an experienced lawyer has the expertise required to advise a client about whether a solution is acceptable, as well as being able to reach that solution as quickly as possible.

Jury Experience
When a trial goes in front of a jury, an experienced personal injury lawyer will know how to represent the case to the jury in order to obtain a favourable verdict.

Author is a freelance writer. For more information about the Chicago personal injury lawyer http://www.millonpeskin.com, visit.

A common Car defect causing injury to the brain in children in the background of the place of

Aaliyah George parents that they have been the safest thing for the marketing of the seat of a car, two years old in seat back three years ago. Then what would have been relatively small accident.

Family 1997 Plymouth Neon was stopped at a red light in the other car, which was almost 30 mph rear-ended it. Place the rear impact absorption, but the driver's seat, was for Aaliyah hit it collapsed and in the title, permanent damage to the brain.

Now 5, Aaliyah has a hard time with basic tasks like banging the drum playing. She clothing. Considerable care Needs.

Family won the product color, the liability of the manufacturer of the seat against

The seat was in the 1997 Plymouth, who broke and entered Aaliyah defective? Only a production error--actually exceeds the manufacturer of the seat of the safety standards which are more stringent than those required by the Federal Government.

However, Aaliyah his parents sued Johnson Controls Incorporated, a company which seats for Plymouth Neon, claimed that the driver's seat was extremely dangerous. Because of its tendency to collapse and fall back during a rear end collision, calculated as Automatic defect Although it complied with all Federal safety requirements.

The jury agreed and awarded US $ 8 million in Aaliyah compensation for its damage to the brain.

The results of the similar injuries of children across THE UNITED STATES from the driver's seat and passenger, that instead of absorbing the impact from the rear.

Attorney Georges ' injuries ' front seat passenger becomes the missile, which extends from the child's brain and hits in the title, "explains. "" We are horrific lobes of the brain and the front is as destructive to these young children.

Lou D ' Aurelio, engineer, neat, on behalf of Georges, describes what happens when one of the seats of the front line of the collapses.

"Either the seat of the body, title, or how you are going to directly to the person who is being held for them. Most of the time, now that is a child. "

Currently, the cardboard workstation or the Chairman of the Lawn may Pass the Federal safety Standard

The current Federal safety standard, the strength of the seat back is so weak that the garden chair and seat of the carton were able to migrate, "says D ' Aurelio. The standard was created in 1968 and D ' Aurelio and other experts in the automotive industry have been trying to get it changed. There is no special safety standard for both the passenger should be protected if the line of the front seats of collapse in an accident.

Administration of safety of the road known as the Agency intends to update the strength of the seat back, but was not taken any decision.

Johnson Controls is intends to withdraw the view of the jury.

"As a supplier of the seat, Johnson Controls and design specifications, which the manufacturer of cars and fulfill each requirement of the performance," said a company statement.

"Uncontested that the seat was in accordance with the manufacturer of the safety requirements of the cars that are more stringent than the FMVSS (Federal motor vehicle safety standards)."

Source: WMAQ-TV, Chicago, "collapsing Car space for injuring passengers, blamed," Lisa Parker, 10. November 2010

View the original article here