Back from Hiatus Part II: State Law Updates Last week, I discussed three examples of Illinois courts analyzing similar non-compete issues in very different ways, a post that amply illustrates how difficult it is for lawyers to predict outcomes for clients.
Regis tribe filed the motion; the PTAB panel delivered a stinging per curium opinion denying the request. Regis tribe did not ask permission to file a motion in advance of filing the motion. Of course, the annoyance of the PTAB panel was contrived. The reason the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe was seeking discovery was because of an intervening action by an expanded panel of the PTAB to deny the assertion of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity to the State of Minnesota.
Ruscke defends the practice of expanding panels, but parties are not given any notice of an expanded panel prior to a decision being entered.
Regis Mohawk Tribe discovery request, there is significant reason to wonder, and sufficient reason to ask, what is going on at the PTAB?
This is no doubt why the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe specifically asked for: I write separately to express my view that a state university, having availed itself of Patent Office procedures to secure patent rights from the public, may not subsequently invoke sovereign immunity as a shield against reconsideration by the Patent Office in an inter partes review proceeding of whether the agency improvidently granted a patent monopoly in the first instance…To my eye, therefore, far from implicating the sovereignty or dignity of the states, inter partes review simply provides a streamlined, specialized mechanism by which the Patent Office may reconsider a patent grant and correct any mistake.
Indeed, the entirety of the concurring opinions are word for word identical. Obviously, the concurring opinions were shared internally in some form or fashion prior to being issued by the PTAB. It seems perfectly reasonable for the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe to want to know who actually wrote these two concurring opinions.
Why would two APJs not assigned to the same case take it upon themselves to collaborate in writing a single concurring opinion? Are APJs not assigned to a case typically consulted? Clearly, APJ Harlow and APJ Bisk worked together in some form or fashion, but absent the obvious copying of their concurring opinions word-for-word the record does not suggest that Harlow was assigned or requested to consult in IPR Similarly, the record does not suggest that Bisk was assigned or requested to consult in IPR Does the PTAB allow or encourage judges not assigned to cases to weigh in and work with the panel actually assigned to the case to write an opinion?
There are numerous questions that need to be answered about these word-for-word identical concurring opinions. Harlow and Bisk issuing identical concurring opinions is particularly problematic because the Administrative Procedure Act APA demands decisional independence, and prohibits political pressure from being placed upon administrative judges such as APJs.
Notwithstanding, this latest discovery relating to the inner workings of PTAB panels makes it seem as if there may be an unseen hand manipulating PTAB decisions. If Judges not assigned to cases are collaborating with Judges on the panels actually assigned, who exactly is deciding PTAB cases?
How can the parties and the public have any confidence that the Judges assigned to a particular proceeding are the Judges reaching the decision?The Client-Friendly billing agreement helps clients establish a fair business relationship with their lawyers.
The agreement is published by The Devil's Advocate, the legal fee management and litigation consulting firm with clients nationwide. The janitor hypothetical is one of the most timeless aspects of non-compete cases. That is, when illustrating how broad a non-compete is, courts and lawyers alike often resort to .
In Search of Perfect Client Service named a Feedspot Top 40 Legal Marketing Blog By Patrick Lamb on April 9th, Posted in Client Service, People, Places and Blawgs Using its search and social metrics, Feedspot is honoring 40 blogs from among the thousands of Legal Marketing blogs.
Blogs were ranked on the following criteria. Legal ethics site for lawyers with principal focus on conflicts of interest. • It can easily be generated automatically by computer to comprise numbered or lettered headings (e.g., upcoming court appearance, client seeking legal opinion, legal question arising from draft agreement, proposed legislation, bench memo for a pending case).
• Write this part last but present it first (i.e., before your detailed. (a) Required Disclosures.(1) Initial Disclosure.(A) In General. Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties.