Supreme Court

The patent world can at times seem very small. The same firms, representing the same group of technology companies, pursuing the same strategies, both to maximize profits for their firms and to deliver results for their clients. Sure people move around, but the players in the larger sense are pretty static. Most patent cases are of limited importance to everyone but the parties involved as well. Sometimes a case has a broader scope, and becomes of interest to industry competitors or even investors. Every once in a while a patent case captures the public fancy, as Apple v. Samsung undoubtedly has, usually because of the nature of the parties involved or the ubiquity of the technology at issue. When that happens, the patent world can seem very big — global in scope, even.

Sometimes a little case can actually turn into a huge deal. When the Supreme Court gets involved, for example. Especially when the issue in the case has far-reaching economic implications for society at large, and not just for the litigants involved. I have seen a number of “big” patent cases during my career, but none has the disruptive potential of a case that is set for oral argument next week in the Supreme Court. From humble beginnings as a declaratory judgment action filed in an unusual forum for patent cases (District of D.C.,) the dispute between Alice Corp. and CLS Bank has grown into one of the most closely-watched and debated patent cases — ever. And deservedly so, because the viability of software patents is on the line. With major ramifications possible: for technology companies of all sizes, IP firms and lawyers, the courts, and the good old global economy as well….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Beyond Biglaw: Software Patent Wars”

(c) Image by Juri H. Chinchilla.

Ten years before Julia Roberts won an Oscar for her portrayal of super-paralegal Erin Brockovich, she gained fame for her role as Vivian, a prostitute not afraid to speak her mind, such as when she guesses (incorrectly) based on her wealthy john’s “sharp, useless look” that he is a lawyer.  Twenty-four years ago yesterday, “Pretty Woman” debuted in theaters and went on to gross an estimated $463 million. This week, On Remand looks back at one of the most successful romantic comedies of all time and the Roy Orbison song that inspired both the movie’s title and a group of controversial rappers from Florida who are no strangers to courtrooms….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “On Remand: Pretty Woman Walking Down First Street”

‘We’re not Case Western Law.’

* Justice Antonin Scalia isn’t quite ready to publicly weigh in on whether computer data is considered a protected “effect” under the Fourth Amendment. “[T]hat may well come up [before the Supreme Court],” he says. Thanks NSA. [Business Insider]

* “[I]t doesn’t take many bad apples in a barrel to cause a stink.” No matter how hard Biglaw firms try to keep their confidential information locked down, someone’s going trade on it. It looks like STB is learning that the hard way. [Wall Street Journal (sub. req.)]

* The day after Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by Judge Bernard Friedman, couples who rushed to marry were met with some serious Sixth Circuit sadness. Way to stay and spoil all of the celebrations, judges. [New York Times]

* “We’re not the Cleveland Browns,” says one of Case Western Law’s interim co-deans. With that kind of a glowing endorsement, we don’t see how this law school could possibly fail. [Crain's Cleveland Business]

* Rutgers Law-Newark has a new low-bono fellowship program “believed to be the first of its kind in the nation.” Some other law schools might have a bone to pick about that statement. [New Jersey Star-Ledger]

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Conestoga and Hobby Lobby cases, the high-profile challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate. Many ordinary citizens wish they could tune in to the arguments on TV, or at least catch clips on the Daily Show nightly news. After all, how else can Americans access this valuable information that could change their lives forever? I mean, without an Upworthy piece or a Buzzfeed listicle?

Of course, serious folks make serious arguments championing televised coverage of Supreme Court arguments. UC Irvine School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote an opinion piece this week, arguing that “[t]here is no excuse for keeping cameras out of the Supreme Court.” (Apparently, Chemerinsky wants cameras in and Justice Ginsburg out, for those keeping track of Chemerinsky’s wish list.) Earlier this month, the Coalition for Court Transparency, a group of press organizations and pro-transparency NGOs, sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, urging the Court to permit the video recording and broadcast of its courtroom.

So, what are opponents of cameras at One First Street so scared of? Do they worry that Chief Justice Roberts will start mugging for the camera? That Justice Scalia will insist on an added laugh track? That Justice Kagan will embark on a dangerous juice fast to slim down like a Hollywood starlet? (Actually, it looks like she already has.)

Those are not my concerns, but here is why I still think video coverage of U.S. Supreme Court arguments is a terrible idea….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “A Conservative Case For Keeping Cameras Out Of The Courtroom”

Rachel Canning

* If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever decides to step down from the Supreme Court (don’t worry, fans, she won’t), perhaps one of these relatively good-looking, relatively young lawyers will be able to step in. [Daily Comment / New Yorker]

* Dewey know who the seven secret tipsters are in the case against D&L? Nope, their pleas are sealed, and it’s “not the typical process.” In fact, it’s “highly unusual.” Guess we’ll find out eventually. [DealBook / New York Times]

* An ex-paralegal with a J.D. from Hofstra is suing Greenberg Traurig with claims of racial bias, saying she wasn’t promoted to an attorney position. Well, she did attend a contender for “Worst Law School in America.” [Am Law Daily]

* In a rare move, it seems that a partner was poached from Williams & Connolly. Jon Fetterolf will now be working at Zuckerman Spaeder, where he’ll be the firm’s first certified sports agent. [Legal Times]

* Reema Bajaj, everyone’s favorite neighborhood prostitute with a penchant for peddling punani for paper products, was suspended by the Illinois Supreme Court for a three-year period. Boo. [ABA Journal]

* Because only the coolest law students do legal research on their phones these days, here are 11 apps to download. Curiously missing from this list is the ATL app. You can get it here. [U.S. News & World Report]

* “The case is over. It’s time to move on.” Rachel Canning, the New Jersey schoolgirl who sued her parents for child support, has agreed to drop her case — and yes, it was all about her boyfriend. [New York Post]

* Robert Strauss, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld name partner, RIP. [New York Times]

* I include this line not to highlight the horribleness of zoos, but because I’m doing NS today and this contains a fun anecdote about walrus masturbation. [Cracked]

* Meanwhile, on Redline, I’m like, doing stuff. [ATL: Redline]

* “I really want to go to law school to study international law and be a part of solving problems like what’s going on in Crimea right now.” — Dumb idiot who will wish he read Above the Law before he went to law school. [Radio Free Europe]

* Student gets punished for sending a tweet from home. Should it really matter where you are sitting when you hit the button on the tweet calling your principal a “pussy ass bitch”? [It-Lex]

* I think the jurors on the Bernie Madoff co-conspirator case might be running a Ponzi scheme. [Dealbreaker]

* Everyone is overwhelmed, apparently. [Going Concern]

* Scalia apparently comes up with his s**t while dozing off to sleep. So, literally now, Scalia’s dreams are the stuff of my nightmares. [Military.com]

* Justice Elena Kagan is looking forward to hunting a new kind of game next year with Justice Antonin Scalia. Gobble gobble, bitches. They’re going after wild turkeys, and not the whiskey. [Legal Times]

* If you’ve been wondering why Morrison & Foerster is referred to as MoFo, the backstory isn’t as cool as we were led to believe. It was the firm’s teletype address. [Capital Business / Washington Post]

* Don’t worry, law profs, your precious tenure protections aren’t going anywhere yet. The ABA has officially given up on its quest to remove tenure as an accreditation requirement. [National Law Journal]

* Nicholas Spaeth, the former state attorney general of North Dakota who sued a slew of law schools for age discrimination after being passed over for a job after AALS, was found dead yesterday. RIP. [Inforum]

* If you’ve been waitlisted, send a letter of continuing interest. Convince them you’ll be employed within 10 months of graduation, and watch the acceptance letters roll on in. [Law Admissions Lowdown / U.S. News]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June. She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values.

– Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, calling for Justice Ginsburg to hang up her robe, in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times. Chemerinsky also suggested that Justice Stephen Breyer “carefully consider” the possibility of stepping down.

* Lawyer opts to wear orange prison scrubs for Lent. When you think about it, it makes a lot more sense than giving up chocolate when your religion is based on a death row inmate. [Waco Tribune]

* A profile of Bob Bennett. They compare him to Olivia Pope. Not sure about that… Bennett’s got bigger tits. [Washington Post]

* A Brooklyn lawyer reached out and grabbed his dream. Unfortunately, that dream involved the crotches of multiple unsuspecting women. [New York Post]

* George Zimmerman’s parents are suing Roseanne Barr, who apparently is still enough of a celebrity that people care to sue her. [IT-Lex]

* Married women can’t get divorced in Alabama. Look at the bright side, that means you can’t get a divorce lawyer who’ll bill you for sex. [Associated Press via WTOP]

* Play along at home with this handy tracker showing just how often the U.S. Chamber of Commerce prevails at the Supreme Court. It’s a long Supreme Court season, but based on the last couple years, the scoreboard might look disturbingly like the Super Bowl’s when all is said and done. [Constitutional Accountability Center]

* Hey, law schools! Looking for more students? It looks like a simple legal change can spike your applications. [Fox News]

* If you’re in D.C. next week, swing by the Race and Access to the Justice System symposium at Georgetown. [Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics]

* The Coalition for Court Transparency sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts, pleading that he allow cameras in the courtroom. Not sure how well this will go over, thanks to last month’s oral arguments interruption by a protestor. [Legal Times]

* Hot on the heels of the news that the firm posted its worst financial performance in six years, Bingham McCutcheon is leaking laterals. Morgan Lewis just poached four lawyers across three cities right out from under the firm’s nose. [Am Law Daily]

* Now that the U.S. News 2015 Law School Rankings are out, here’s Kyle McEntee of Law School Transparency to tell you what’s wrong with them, particularly, that not every school is the “best.” [Law.com]

* If you were a law school dean, we sincerely hope you’d just live with the consequences of an enrollment decline instead of lowering your admission standards to put more asses in seats. [National Law Journal]

* Nancy Grace must defend herself against a defamation suit filed by Michael Skakel. It’s almost fitting that she’d get sued over talking about someone allegedly masturbating in a tree. [Hollywood Reporter]

Page 15 of 1001...111213141516171819...100