Rejoice, wedding fans! We have some compelling mid-summer material for you this week: Wachtell, SCOTUS, lesbians, French nobility — read on for the details on all of that and more, as reported in the New York Times and filtered by us.

Our finalist couples:

1. Rebecca Gutner and Rodman Forter Jr.

2. Laura Hammond and Christopher Hemphill

3. Laure de Vulpillières and Vanessa Dillen

Admire these couples’ achievements, after the jump.

It’s an exciting day here at ATL when we can find three excuses to cover the salacious beat (see #1 and #2). Judge Richard Posner brings us our third opportunity.

Judge Posner issued a ruling [PDF] Friday in a patent infringement case involving “sex aids” companies. Posner brings his dry humor and excellent wit to the decision, starting off by defining the nature of the business the plaintiff and the defendant are in:

Both firms produce what the parties call “sex aids” but are colloquially referred to as “sex toys.” A more perspicuous term is “sexual devices,” by analogy to “medical devices.” The analogy lies in the fact that, like many medical devices (thermometers for example), what we are calling sexual devices are intended to be inserted into bodily orifices, albeit for a different purpose.

Never before has patent infringement been so sexy… and sex toys so un-sexy:

The devices are generally in the shape of rods of various curvatures and are made out of rubber, plastic, glass, or some combination of these materials. Until the plaintiffs began manufacturing their patented sexual devices, glass sexual devices were made out of soda-lime glass, the most common form of glass.

We are not as well-versed in the nature of sex toys as is Judge Posner. We didn’t realize there were such things as glass dildos — despite the presence of this commenter in our threads — but apparently there are, and they have been around for a long time. The plaintiffs in Ritchie (Know Mind Enterprises/Topco) v. Vast Resources Inc. claimed to innovate the glass dildo design, obtaining a patent for those made with borosilicate glass (the stuff used by Pyrex). Adding silica makes the devices “slippery,” “lubricious,” and “resistant to heat, chemicals, electricity and bacterial absorptions.” While we like chemistry in bed, electricity might be a bit much.

Ritchie sued Vast Resources for violating its patent, and making their own slippery glass rods. The Seventh Circuit, in Judge Posner’s opinion, reversed the lower court’s decision in the plaintiff’s favor, ruling that Pyrexing sex devices is not patentable. It’s an “obvious” invention, an example of “modest, routine, everyday, incremental improvements of an existing product or process that confer commercial value… but do not involve sufficient inventiveness to merit patent protection.”

Posner is a judge on the Seventh Circuit but sat on this Federal Circuit case by designation. Like us, Posner likes writing on salacious topics. After all, having penned the book Sex and Reason in 1992, Posner is a judicial sexpert.

Decision [Federal Circuit]
Slippery Sex Toys Aren’t Inventive, U.S. Court Says [Bloomberg]
Slick Glass Dildos are an “Obvious” Improvement! [The Legal Satyricon]
Judge Posner at the Federal Circuit: Patent on Sex Aid is Obvious [Patent Law Blog]

* AIG’s $33.6 million bonuses paid last week to 418 employees will be under intense scrutiny this week in Washington. Barney Frank does not look pleased. [The New York Times]

* Obama names moderate U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. [The Washington Post]

* U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg will undergo precautionary chemotherapy after her pancreatic cancer surgery. [Reuters]

* I guess my call to reform naughty judges was answered…the nation’s federal judges adopted new ethics rules yesterday. [The Associated Press]

* There is growing concern amongst some judges and lawyers that twittering jurors are threatening the integrity of cases presented in court. [CNET]

* Clifford Chance is subletting 25,000 square feet of excess office space to Kilpatrick Stockton. [The New York Observer]

* Some of the assets of Madoff’s now-defunct firm may be in Gibraltar—why is this interesting to you guys? It probably isn’t, but there are lots of lawyers involved. [Bloomberg]

Having your lawyering subjected to the scrutiny of Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner is a scary experience. He’s known to be a harsh critic. In a 2001 New Yorker profile, Posner compared his personality to that of his cat: “cold, furtive, callous, snobbish, selfish, and playful, but with a streak of cruelty.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Juliet Sorensen got a taste of the cruelty in a recent opinion from the Seventh Circuit which dissected her “pattern of improper argumentation… that does no credit to the Justice Department.” The court reversed a conviction for wire fraud and mislabeling food. (A Google search leads us to believe that Sorensen is daughter to legal heavyweight Ted Sorensen, adviser to JFK and a retired Paul Weiss senior partner.)

Juliet Sorensen prosecuted expiration-date entrepreneur Charles Farinella for buying 1.6 million bottles of Henri’s Salad Dressing that were a month away from their “best when purchased by” date. Farinella then slapped on a new date, pushing it back by a year, and resold the dressing to dollar stores for a Tas-tee profit.

“Best when purchased by” is certainly a confusing concept. Posner explores it thoroughly, but admits to not being too hung up on eating foods after those dates run out. In his opinion, he says Sorensen misled the jury by equating the “best by” date with the expiration date, and referring to anything past the “best by” date as “foul, rancid food.”

Posner objected mightily to describing the “shelf stable” Henri’s Dressing in such demeaning terms. Posner then switched metaphors on us in his decision [PDF], saying “the omissions are more interesting than the scanty contents of the government’s threadbare case.” Given all the dressing talk, it seems like the government’s case could have been described as runny, thin, or lacking in flavor… but we digress.

Posner gave Sorensen a thorough dressing-down in his opinion. See Posner’s painful smackdown, after the jump.

You never know where you’ll find sexism in our society and our profession. It knows no party or ideology.

But it has no place in court. In a decision yesterday, 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner took a shot at a plaintiff’s attorney who thought this was still 1950.

The case, Thorogood v. Sears Roebuck, was perfectly set up for a sexist wisecrack by an attorney cheap enough to take it. The case involved stainless steel clothes dryers that nonetheless caused rust stains on some clothing. A massive class action suit was mounted against Sears because “stainless steel” was not used for every part of the appliance.

During oral argument, the plaintiff’s attorney suggested that the all-male bench “ask their wives” about the problems associated with rust stains from dryers.

Posner did not find this funny. Writing for the majority (and holding for Sears) Posner shot back:

At argument the plaintiff’s lawyer, skeptical that men ever operate clothes dryers—oddly, since his client does—asked us to ask our wives whether they are concerned about rust stains in their dryers. None is.

Nice.

Prior ATL articles have shown that some men really expect their wives to do all the laundry, but they are a dying breed (I think). There’s no way that attorney would have joked about women washing clothes if there was a woman on the 7th Circuit panel.

Hopefully, getting smacked around by Posner will teach this attorney that he should not make sexist remarks in open court regardless of the gender diversity on the bench.

Thorogood.SearsRoebuck.Opinion.pdf

Earlier: And No, She Doesn’t Do Windows

As some of you have noticed, we tend not to remark negatively on the innate physical attributes of our Legal Eagle contestants. There are several reasons for our reticence, but the most basic one is simply this: LEWW believes that prestige is beautiful. LEWW believes that every bride can look gorgeous on her special day if she has the right law degree. LEWW believes that a JD from HLS is like a great bra; it looks flimsy and has a jaw-dropping price tag, but it will support you and make you look better than you deserve.

Having made much of our reluctance to comment disparagingly about our subjects’ appearance, we’ll promptly depart from our own custom and announce that this is Hotness Disparity Week on LEWW. All of our grooms are decent-looking but undeniably average Joes, and we submit to you that all of them have married up.

See if you agree with us. Here are the couples:

1. Uma Amuluru and John Theis

2. Dena Fayad and David Guggenheim

3. Courtney Gregoire and Scott Lindsay

Click on the link below to read about these couples.

* Seventh Circuit to lawyer: What is this, amateur hour? [TaxProf Blog]

* Some more full length attorney bio pics. [Groom Law Group]

* Speaking of the whole Mac-PC thing… [Choate Hall & Stewart LLP]

* Former Congressman blows by the cops while getting blown, then refuses to blow. [Times Union]

* Ah jeez, the nuns too? [New York Times]

Well, not in Illinois. In Cavel International v. Madigan (PDF; via How Appealing), the Seventh Circuit upheld an Illinois law making it unlawful to “slaughter a horse if that person knows or should know that any of the horse meat will be used for human consumption.”

It’s a quirky and interesting case. Howard Bashman provides a concise summary and more discussion over here.

Don’t miss page 11 of Judge Richard Posner’s slip opinion, which features a photograph of a “birthday cake” made of horse meat. YUM!!

Cavel Int’l v. Madigan (PDF) [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]
Horse meat was until recently an accepted part of the American diet [How Appealing]

Since the tireless Howard Bashman is in transit, we’ll temporarily assume his role as super-timely provider of appellate litigation news.

This just in: A divided Seventh Circuit panel has affirmed the criminal convictions of former Illinois Governor George H. Ryan and his associate, Lawrence Warner. The majority opinion is by Judge Diane Wood (who is a judicial hottie); the dissent is by Judge Michael Kanne (who is reportedly not fat).

This is especially bad news for Winston & Strawn. As some of you may recall, the firm reportedly blew $20 million on defending Governor Ryan, on a pro bono basis.

United States v. Ryan [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]

The rail-thin Judge Richard Posner (7th Cir.), who favors grapefruit for dessert, has this to say about fat people over at his blog:

It makes sense, as the recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine finds, that friends’ fatness would have an influence distinct from that of the culture as a whole….

In my own ingroup of 16 judges (11 active members of my court, 4 senior members, and 1 nominee, who will replace an active member who will be taking senior status), only 2 are overweight (12.5 percent), compared to a nationwide average of 66 percent. Among my other friends, judicial and otherwise, the percentage who are overweight is probably no greater than 12.5 percent.

When we read this, we guessed that one of the two overweight judges was Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook. After all, a fondness for Arby’s Melts is not a recipe for thinness. But one ex-Seventh Circuit clerk we contacted disagreed:

Actually, Easterbrook has lost a lot of weight. I am not sure who [Posner] meant. Also query whether he used the rigorous BMI > 25 test.

Good point. Did Judge Posner run around the Dirksen Courthouse with a pair of body-fat calipers? Or did he just eyeball his colleagues in the robing room, to see who was sporting muffin tops?

To Seventh Circuit groupies: Which judges are packing a few extra pounds underneath their robes? Please enlighten us, in the comments. Thanks.

Social Obesity — Posner’s Comment [The Becker-Posner Blog]

Not allowing the defendant to allocute before pronouncing sentence is a rookie mistake for a judge to make. So if a judge makes it, despite having been on the bench for over 25 years, he can expect to get benchslapped. From a Wisconsin reader:

Not sure if this is quite up your alley, but Federal District Judge John Shabaz got bench-slapped pretty hard by the Seventh Circuit in an opinion that came down today.

He’s like a million years old and is best known around here for falling asleep during trials and objecting himself and sustaining his own objections. We’ve decided not to get really worried until he starts overruling himself.

Well, as long as a former clerk doesn’t write a tell-all memoir, Judge Shabaz should be just fine.

Wherrrreeee’s Johnny [Seriatim]
United States v. Luepke (PDF) [U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]
John C. Shabaz bio [FJC]

What do you get when you put the three smartest judges on the Seventh Circuit — Frank Easterbrook, Richard Posner, and Diane Wood — on the same panel?

In this case, something weird. Very weird. It’s amusing to imagine this trio of legal geniuses wrapping their minds around such a bizarre fact pattern.

Questions Presented:

(1) How can you tell when a gay co-worker is cruising you at the urinals?

(2) Is he checking you out — or does he just have a lazy eye?

For more details, check out Keeping Up With Jonas.

Gay Guy Harasses Straight Co-Worker at Urinal? [Keeping Up With Jonas]
Bernier v. Morningstar, Inc. [Keeping Up With Jonas (PDF)]

* A hilarious read if you’ve been there, even if I tell you that the punchline is that this 70-year-old rich lawyer dude with 40-year-old sheets now has a 22-year-old Russian girlfriend. [New York Times]

* I think I heard a colleague at one of my first jobs say he wanted to f*&k me like an animal. It was a good thing I didn’t find any cause of action, because it turns out it was just that Nine Inch Nails song playing in his cubicle. [Workplace Prof Blog]

* You are actually a day older than you think, a fact hopefully irrelevant to ATL readers. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Groupies are much less trouble. [MSN Music]

A quick follow-up to yesterday’s post about Judge Richard Posner’s opinion in the “Giftes” free speech T-shirt case.

Thanks to the commenter who brought the two drawings in the opinion exhibits to our attention. We reprint them after the jump. And we look forward to seeing them in the august pages of the Federal Reporter.

A detailed excerpt, plus a link to the full opinion, can be accessed here (via How Appealing). Money quote:

[T]he picture and the few words imprinted on the Brandt T-shirt are no more expressive of an idea or opinion that the First Amendment might be thought to protect than a young child’s talentless infantile drawing which Brandt’s design successfully mimics. Otherwise every T-shirt that was not all white with no design or words… would be protected by the First Amendment, and schools could not impose dress codes or require uniforms without violating the free speech of the students, a proposition sensibly rejected in the Blau case.

“[T]alentless infantile drawing”? Judge Posner, that was way harsh.

You had to rule against the plaintiffs based on the caselaw; fine. But did you really have to insult their artistic abilities? Kids are like district judges: their feelings are easily hurt.

(If you’re not familiar with this bizarre but amusing litigation, read our earlier post, available here.)

Rulings of Note from the Seventh Circuit [How Appealing]

Earlier: Lawsuit of the Day: Gifties v. Tards

* Dahlia Lithwick on SCOTUS and the death penalty. [Slate]

* A panel of the Seventh Circuit is made up entirely of Sixth Circuit judges sitting by designation. Of course, recusal seems to make sense when the defendant plotted to attack the Seventh Circuit’s courthouse. [How Appealing]

* Novak testifies: he got the info from Armitage and Rove. [CNN]

* Pay the judges! [WSJ Law Blog]

* I’ve my got my mind on my merger and my merger’s on my mind. [Law.com]

Here’s an interesting appeal that was recently argued before the Seventh Circuit. From the Chicago Sun-Times (via Ted Frank):

Four years ago, the “Gifties” of Beaubien School lost in the principal’s office. Then, this class of gifted eighth-grade students lost in U.S. district court.

Undeterred, Thursday the group went before one of the highest courts of the land, arguing their principal violated First Amendment free speech rights when he punished them for wearing T-shirts with the word “Gifties” on them.

“There’s a certain point when you have to stick up for your rights,” said Michael Brandt, one of 24 gifted students who sued their principal and the Chicago Board of Education. His mother, Irene Dymkar, is representing the students in the class action lawsuit.

At oral argument, Judge Richard Posner sounded unsympathetic to their cause:

“Why do people bring lawsuits for such trivialities?” Judge Richard Posner, a notoriously tough jurist, asked Dymkar during a three-judge hearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit Thursday. “Have they been harmed, these ‘Gifties’?”

Chicago Public Schools lawyers say Kotis was protecting the kids from possible attacks by regular education students. They argue there were tensions between the groups and Kotis had outlawed the word “gifties,” as well as “tards,” used to refer to regular education students….

The gifted students claim there was no safety issue.

We admire the appellants’ chutzpah. It takes guts to label your classmates “tards.”

But we question their assertion that there was no safety issue. They might as well have worn T-shirts reading, “I’m a nerd. Please beat the crap out of me.”

Kids pit principle vs. their principal [Chicago Sun-Times via Overlawyered]
T-shirt battle before Seventh Circuit [Overlawyered]

As previously mentioned, we’re on a reduced publication schedule this week. We’ll be doing a daily news round-up (and maybe a few other random posts here and there). We’ll return to our normal diarrhea of the keyboard publishing schedule on January 2.

* Civil libertarians, just raise the white flag. The Justice Department knows what you’re doing RIGHT NOW. [Washington Post]

* His father always knew there was “something special” about Judge Frank Easterbrook. And litigants who have appeared before FHE feel the same way. [Buffalo News via How Appealing (of course — no offense, but we aren’t regular readers of the Buffalo News)]

* In other Seventh Circuit news, Judge Richard Posner delivers remarks about maritime law to an audience of supermodels. We swear we’re not making this up. [Washington Post]

* Following up on our prior report, here’s a clear sign that Chadbourne & Parke partners don’t have enough business. [WSJ Law Blog]

* If McDonald’s french fries never taste the same, blame it on the anti-trans-fat legislation. [UPI]

* Complications of diabetes: not just medical, but law-related, too. [New York Times]

* If you’re a judge with unfulfilled literary aspirations, try writing something safe and non-controversial. Ideally it should be something nobody would want to read. We suggest a pop-up book about the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch via How Appealing]

* Even more fun than charades: take Peter Lattman to a party, start reading out random newspaper headlines, and challenge him to find a legal angle to the stories. [WSJ Law Blog]

* The feds and the ACLU wrangle over a classified document. Is such use of the grand jury subpoena creative, or improper? [New York Times]

* A Swift (& Co.) crackdown: federal raids on meatpacking plants in six states result in over 1,200 arrests on immigration charges. [Associated Press]

* MoveOn and those Swift Boat Veterans get fined. [New York Times]

* “Seventh Circuit reinstates claim asserting that … members of the plaintiff classes have bought products or services from some of the defendants that they would not have bought had the defendants not concealed their involvement in slavery.” [How Appealing]

* Girls Gone Wild guy gets community service for filming underage women. [MSNBC]

* “College Student Gets Mother-in-Law to Co-Sign $10,000 Loan to Buy Apple Computer, Has $7,800 DOI Income When He Repays Only $2,200 After Taking High-Paying Job at Microsoft.” [TaxProf Blog]

* A British police inquiry rejects conspiracy theories concerning the death of Princess Diana, concluding that the 1997 car crash was a “tragic accident.” [Associated Press]

* Does anyone know if “ABV D LAW” is taken? [WSJ Law Blog]

* It’s all about the benjamins, baby. Bonus season is upon us. And we’re standing by to broadcast every move. So please email us with any news, rumors, and leaked memos about bonuses.

* Truthful tips are especially welcome. Look for the first wave of bonus announcements in the coming week.

* And check out the most anal retention letter ever.

* In non-Biglaw developments, it was a busy week for the Supreme Court. They heard all about EPA regulatory discretion, the Federal Circuit’s recondite jurisprudence, and other fun topics.

* On tap for the SCOTUS: Ken Starr and a bizarrely fascinating case. It’s like Bill ‘n Monica, all over again. But is it sexy enough for same-day audio-cast? Probably not.

* Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the imminent Democratic takeover is already being felt at the Senate Judiciary Committee. The big white-collar shops are eagerly anticipating lots of new business.

* Speaking of elections, please cast your vote for November 2006 Couple of the Month. And if you’re an NYU Law School student, please forward us the results of voting in the 3L hottie contest.

* In federal appellate judge news, Judge Morris Arnold is recovering nicely, Judge Richard Posner is getting testy, and Judge Frank Easterbrook is now Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook.

* And over in the district court, Judge Lee Rosenthal (S.D. Tex.) is probably out of the running for a promotion to the Fifth Circuit (despite being very highly regarded).

* Finally, in state court land, some judges are getting a little big for their britches robes. They’re mouthing off, railing against immigrants, and making spectacles of themselves. Pipe down, Your Honors, and stay out of trouble.