FCBA and Santa Clara Program on Advanced Complex Litigation

By Jason Rantanen

This year, the Federal Circuit Bar Asociation is sponsoring a series of programs on Advanced Complex Litigation. Next Friday, May 3, the FCBA and Santa Clara Law School's High Tech Law Institute will co-host the next segment of the series. Speakers and panelists include: Chief Judge Rader, Judges Whyte and Koh, Magistrate Judge Grewal, Erich Spangenberg (IP Nav), Alan Schoenbaum (Rackspace), Mary Coyne (Verizon), Courtland Reichmann (McKool) and others. In addition, professor Colleen Chien will present the
interim results of an on-going survey of in-house counsel.

Topics include:

• Discovery
• Case Management
• Focusing Disputes
• Multiple Party Litigation

Further details are available here: http://law.scu.edu/hightech/2013-advanced-complex-litigation-series.cfm . The last program of the series will take place in Newark on May 30. Details on the entire series are available here: http://www.fedcirbar.org/olc/pub/LVFC/cpages/misc/acl_series.jsp .

8 thoughts on “FCBA and Santa Clara Program on Advanced Complex Litigation

  1. All one sees is sustained hostility to patent owners and a pro-infringer bias

    Accord.

    (careful Ned, you are likely to be tarred with the ‘T’ brush)

  2. Focusing disputes?

    You have to be kidding. Defendants want to raise and litigate every issue under the sun in order to delay, and to drive up the costs of the patent owner. There are good reason cases are unfocused.

    Just observe how they passed the law to force patent litigation into as many different courtrooms and jurisdictions as possible. In this, does one see any emphasis on judicial efficiency one gets from having one common claim construction instead of 10-20? From one trial on validity instead of 10-20?

    All one sees is sustained hostility to patent owners and a pro-infringer bias.

    May I make a recommendation: if the reason a company does not take a license is because they do not think they infringe, let them opt out of common proceedings taking no position on validity, which, I assume, is a compulsory counterclaim and by not raising the issue will prevent them from raising it in future litigation.

    If, however, their main beef is validity, they should not be permitted to litigate this issue separately.

  3. Missed the joke again, did you?

    Not at all. I am not even going to ask why you would think so.

    I thought it was funny.

    No accounting for taste.

  4. let’s discuss how you propose to not allow something to be talked about.

    Missed the joke again, did you? I thought it was funny.

  5. Third rule of Fight Club: Someone yells stop, goes limp, taps out, the fight is over. Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight. Fifth rule: one fight at a time, fellas. Sixth rule: no shirts, no shoes. Seventh rule: Fights will go on as long as they have to. And the eighth and final rule: If this is your first night at Fight Club, you have to fight.

  6. through inaction, allow Robot Fight Club to be talked about.

    OK Brainiac, let’s discuss how you propose to not allow something to be talked about.

  7. The first rule of Robot Fight Club is that you don’t talk about Robot Fight Club, or, through inaction, allow Robot Fight Club to be talked about.

Comments are closed.