I am presenting a paper “Evidence: Getting It In” at the State Bar’s 31st Annual Advanced Evidence and Discovery seminar in April and May in Dallas and San Antonio, respectively, and am already hard at work updating my standard materials on evidence. The problem is that the other speakers have taken some of the juicier bits and pieces of my evidence stories, so I am having to dig for tips and pointers that are a little less obvious.
So let’s try a little crowdsourcing here – readers, if you have any good evidence stories or tips, please shoot them to me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I’ll credit you in the paper and online.
The annual Year in Review issue of the Texas Bar Journal is out, and as usual, I have the patent litigation update. It is at p. 39-40 of the magazine, and p. 19-20 of the attached article. As 600 word summaries of TC Heartland and In re Cray go, it’s one of the best you’ll read, uh, this afternoon.
2017 Year in Review – Texas Bar Journal
And while I have your eyes on this post, another article is particularly worth mentioning, and that is the timely holiday season reminder by State Bar president Tom Vick (he’s the old one on the left) in his column Take Care In The New Year that attorneys are at higher risk for depression, anxiety and suicide than the general population, and the Texas Lawyers Assistance Program (TLAP) is there to help confidentially at (800) 343-8527. Importantly, it’s also there for you and I to call about colleagues that we think might be at risk, so if you see something, please make the call.
I know from when Tom and I were crisscrossing the state last spring that TLAP was something we both believe is one of the most important things the Bar does, and I’m glad to see him continuing to give it a high profile. So if you think it could help you or a colleague, please make the call.
(Ed. note: I never see the picture of Tom and I on the bar journal cover that I don’t smile, because what you can’t see is that because Tom is approximately 6′ 18″ tall, I am standing on two boxes so I don’t look like a hobbit, and we’re both trying not to laugh at the silly boxer pose the photographer has us in).
The Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Texas has its latest TIPsheet out (Texas IP, get it? Patent lawyer humor). In addition to the chair’s article by Herb Hammond, the issue features an article on Employee – Inventor Remuneration Policies by Sushil Iyer.
This year, the Section’s Patent Committee formed the Patent Policy Subcommittee to provide thoughtful analysis of patent policy issues. The Subcommittee plans to highlight various stakeholder perspectives on policy issues through newsletter articles, with TC Heartland Changes Patent Venue Landscape by yours truly as the inaugural article. The Subcommittee also plans to address patent agent privilege, the constitutionality of inter partes review; patent legislation (e.g., STRONGER Patents Act); and patent eligibility. The Subcommittee is interested in hearing from Section members on these and other issues they would like it to examine.
The subcommittee is chaired by Roshan Mansinghani (email@example.com), with members James Hooper (firstname.lastname@example.org), George W. Jordan III (email@example.com), Cullen Kiker (firstname.lastname@example.org), Michael Smith (email@example.com), and William Ramey (firstname.lastname@example.org).
A copy of my article is attached below. Again, if you have suggestions as far as topics you’d like to see the committee address, just email any one of us and we’ll pass it to Roshan.
I’m still a day away from finishing the ILT IP conference in Plano, but already looking forward to Wednesday and Thursday of this week in NYC where I’ll be celebrating my 21st anniversary while participating in a panel Ethics in Patent Litigation – Jury Research, Including Use of Social Media at PLI’s 2017 Patent Litigation program.
I say “I” because I am fairly certain that Jamie will find something to do in midtown Manhattan other than watch me talk about jury research. But we’ll see if there’s a place open for dinner after I finish, and mark 21 years.
There’s no paper on this one, although my co-panelist Daniel Wolfe with DecisionQuest has prepared slides. I’ll just be opining on what I’ve seen be effective, and recent trends on the subject. I typically handle voir dire in the cases I’m involved in (I already know I’ll get laughed at for calling it “vore dyer” but it goes with the territory) so I may have a little to offer on the subject on what information on jurors is helpful, how to use it, and some potential land mines in collecting it.
I’m sure I’ll be up early that morning, since EDTX Judge Roy Payne is on the judge panels that morning. Maybe I can pick up some pointers on appearing in his court.
As I’ve posted previously, I am presenting tomorrow morning at the ILT IP seminar on The Effect of TC Heartland on Patent Venue. The paper got a little lengthy, even though I really only addressed a small number of post-TC Heartland cases. My defense is that I wanted to discuss the issues that have come up post-TCH using illustrative cases, rather than brief every decision finding venue proper or improper.
The slides, candidly, got away from me, but I had a lot – and I mean a lot – of charts on filing statistics that hopefully show some useful trends. Plus this is just going to be a fun presentation (because I’m just that boring) so I added a bit of what I consider humor. And I don’t really think 130 slides is too many for a 45 minute presentation, do you?
I hope subscribers find them useful. And as Judge Andy Hanen of the SDTX once told an audience regarding one of my papers, which he’d relied on in preparing a presentation on federal procedural issues: It’s a great review of the subject, and it’s also great for curing insomnia.
Looking forward to today’s sessions at the 2017 Midwest IP Institute at the outstanding Minnesota CLE Conference Center in Minneapolis. Lots of good speakers on tap, beginning with this morning’s keynote, CAFC Judge Jimmie V. Reyna. I am up on the panel on venue after TC Heartland with Susan Morrison and Aaron Myers, moderated by John Adkisson. John pulled current filings stats for us to discuss, as well as trends we are seeing in practice. I had my first post-In re Cray venue hearing the day before yesterday, so I can relay what I’m seeing as far as briefing and argument as well.
As I’ve posted on previously, I cowrote and am co-presenting Jurisdiction & Venue: Where Does the Case Belong? at this year’s TexasBarCLE Advanced Civil Trial course with David Lopez of San Antonio. Davis covered San Antonio, aka the “fun” location last month, and I covered Dallas last week. Houston is not till October, and that’s usually a coin toss. No offense to you 214 and 713 lawyers – it’s just that you don’t have a lazy river and s’mores on site like the San Antonio hotel does.
Attached is the paper and the slides, credit for which goes solely to David. If you want to know why there’s a photo of Sam Elliot as Brig. Gen. John Buford in the movie Gettysburg … go watch Gettysburg and see what he says about the importance of good ground.
(Ed. note: picture of hotel not taken during my presentation).
My second paper this week is one I’m particularly excited about, and that is “Post-Trial Motion Practice” at the TexasBarCLE Advanced Patent Litigation seminar in Horseshoe Bay. The paper and – more importantly – the slides are attached for subscribers, and the following cases I’ll be discussing are attached below for attendees. (You don’t need them to follow the presentation, but you may want to refer to them later).
i4i Ltd Partnership v Microsoft Corp
DDR – JMOL order
The seminar starts tomorrow morning and extends through Friday evening at a pretty posh resort in the Texas Hill Country, and includes a waterfront reception and cruise tomorrow evening jointly sponsored by the Association of Women Lawyers of the Eastern District of Texas and the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas blog is also proud to be a sponsor of the seminar, which is a traditional meeting place for Texas layers involved in patent litigation.
My presentation is the second to last of the seminar at 2:45 pm Friday, but the good news is that there’s something even more thrilling to lawyers after me, Attorneys Fees by Amanda Abraham of the Roth Law Firm also from Marshall. (The sad thing is that I’m not being facetious – attorneys fees really is a thrilling topic to those of us that will be there, and given recent caselaw, it appears we’ll be ending on a high note).
Those to whom it will not be thrilling are our twins Collin and Parker who are being dragged to the seminar involuntarily, just so I can take them to the nearby National Museum of the Pacific War in Fredericksburg, Texas Saturday morning. They are, sadly, used to this sort of bull, being forced to spend a lot of their family time in museums with Dad, most recently Omaha Beach at Normandy last month. (They’ll appreciate it later, I’m sure).
Again, subscribers click through for the paper (including a sample “JMOL worksheet”) and the slides.
her things, venue, coauthored with David Lopez of Pulman, Cappucio Pullen Benson & Jones in San Antonio. The paper deals with the relative jurisdiction of state and federal courts, as well as the venue questions that come into play once you determine which court you want to – or can – file in.
While David and I initially planned on co-presenting the paper at as many of the three sites as possible, schedules intervened, as they often do on these three-site presentations. The paper was supposed to be presented this morning in San Antonio at the Hyatt Regency Hill Country resort, but we swapped dates and times to help out another speaker so David will be presenting Friday morning at 10 am, when I already have to be in Horseshoe Bay to present a different paper (more on that later) at the Advanced Patent Litigation seminar.
The next presentation is in Dallas on August 16, but had to be rescheduled due to a pretrial conference. I would tell you that because that case was stayed last night we’ll be back on then, but as that’s the day we take our oldest off to start college at Baylor and I have to drive my wife and I home after we leave our baby, I’m pretty sure it’ll get moved to the 17th or 18th. (I can tell the State Bar that’s a conflict – I can’t tell a federal judge that. My wife disagrees, but fortunately the point has become moot). The third and final presentation will be in Houston in October.
Subscribers click through for a copy of the paper, and when David gets me the slides I’ll add those as well.
Yep, I can identify with the resurrected Agent Cooper in Twin Peaks experiencing his beloved coffee for the first time in 25 years, because I get to present later this week at the State Bar Advanced Patent Litigation seminar (cosponsored by this weblog) on post trial motion practice. Regular readers will know that means I am seriously going to town on the usefulness of JMOLs, including providing a tutorial on the use of JMOL worksheets. I’ll be posting later today or tomorrow with the paper, slides, and copies of the specific JMOLs I will be addressing in detail at the conference. Technically I am presenting two days before on the topic of forum selection at the State Bar’s Advanced Civil Trial seminar in San Antonio, but due to scheduling issues, coauthor David Lopez will be presenting that one also on Friday, and I’ll include more information on it when I upload that paper.