Talk about LKQ: I’m looking forward to joining Prof Sarah Burstein and others on Tuesday June 4 for an online panel discussion on the potential aftermath of the Federal Circuit’s major en banc design patent obviousness decision in LKQ v. GM.
In February 2024 we met along with Meredith Lowry (Wright Lindsey Jennings); Darrell Mottley (Howard University); and Laura Sheridan (Google) to give a preview of the case and we’re meeting again now to talk through where the pieces are falling.
Free event via Suffolk University Law School, but you need to register. Noon Eastern Time, June 4, 2024.
OT, but importantly, a major patent law firm reports that third-party litigation funding (TPLF) of patent cases [in return for a % of the lawsuit setttlement or other recovery] is extensive and increasing, and is also under increased judicial scrutiny and madated disclosures in some federal court districts. One recent article it cited conservatively estimated that these patent lawsuit funders are providing $2.3 billion annually while another source put it at $5 billion. A significant % are allegedly foriegn. Massive financial risk backing for PAE lawsuits from investors who obviously plan to get their investments back, and thus obviously must think the U.S. patent infringement enforcement system is NOT broken.
That’s some upper level gaslighting there Paul.
‘Some people are saying’ — while using the ‘what’ of being said (which is nothing more than a repackaged “0h N0es, Tr011s” propaganda) as somehow showing “that patent system is not broken.”
Thing is, you cannot have it both ways.
The elephant in the room is why so few of certain demographics pursue STEM education. It cannot possibly be traced back to public education in K-12 schools!
Instead of working on solving that issue, the answer is to lower the bar.
Another elephant in the room is what demographic has been trying, since 1954 and a certain SCOTUS decision, to destroy public education so that their precious children don’t have to go to school with “those kids” from those “certain demographics”?
A certain clip of now President Biden comes to mind.
This?
link to businessinsider.com
Nah it’s not just merely k-12 or whatever, it’s overall societal perceptions and expectations and cheering ons and etc. etc. etc. People like myself, if we’re not out in sports and lifting and boxing etc all on the side will be seen as lower-than just for having the remotest talent or interest in STEM at all. Anyone who is out in the real world outside of the upper middle class/upper class white bubble knows this is the case. This is true, until you wow them with something like “I’m working to make your iphone better” or “I’m working to make google better for ya”. Then ohhhhhh, now you’re god’s gift.
I don’t think any professor is qualified to discuss any patent cases. You essentially work at a communist training camp and know that if you go against the orthodoxy that you will be terminated.
There are exceptions (Mossof comes to mind).
Very serious stuff from the fossil in the corner wearing the green beret.
I see that you are still trying to deny reality.
The severe Left skew of Academia is well documented. Why would you pick this battle?
“The severe Left skew of Academia is well documented”
ROTFLMAO
Facts have a liberal bias, Billy. That’s your real problem with “academia”, Billy, and it always has been.
Absolutely – and unequivocally – false.
Facts simply do NOT support your position.
Facts don’t support an Earth older than 5,000 years? Facts don’t support the concept of global warming? Facts don’t support the safety and efficacy of vaccines?
I have a long, long list of similar questions for you, Billy.
It’s the academic consensus around basic facts like these (and many other facts in many other areas of study) which drive the rightwing crazy and motivate their assaults on academia and public education.
Everybody knows this, Billy.
Billy is referring to “facts” like “the Civil War was fought over states’ rights.”
Hi Smelly – trying to join Dirty Diaper in his one-bucketing and strawmanning?
Never had an interaction with you Breeze where the foundation of your argument wasn’t a logic fallacy.
You will notice that Smelly Breeze tends to only engage you on non-patent law items (while mirroring P00py Diaper while doing so).
Some people should just stick to patent law here.
ol NWPA might like this about muh rusky disinfo
link to yahoo.com
Except those of us that are real scientists know that there really isn’t good evidence of global warming being caused by humans. There are at least two books written by this that I know of. One by the former head of the department at GeorgiaTech and another by the former provost at CalTech.
You cult Red Guard members are just incapable of debating, though. Anyone that disagrees with you is just ev1l.
“ There are at least two books written by this that I know of”
Two books have been written, you say? That’s very impressive. You rocked my world! I now see that academia is indeed a communist-infested scourge on our civilization.
Still no substance MM. Try.
Here is a number one best seller by a highly respected scientist explaining how we have a consensus of scientists but not a scientific consensus.
link to amazon.com
The book gets rave reviews from…the Claremont Institute and Wall Street Journal!
Lulz
I do have to disagree with you NWPA that there isn’t good evidence of human caused climate change. There’s literally good evidence of human caused climate change going wayyyyyy back like 2k years. Further it’s clear we’re impacting it today. That being said, I’m not concerned about it at all. Middle of the road models (or the lower tier models where less change occurs) all show that the climate change will be fine over the 100 year period. Some problems will happen but overall growth in econ will more than pay for it. Further, some people are saying in some vidyas that autists all hopped up on AI gfs the quality of HER (the movie AI girl) will make us a Kardashev type 2 civ by 2050 anyway. That of course is enough to completely control the weather np. So all we have to do is make sure autists get AI gfs of good quality and we’re all set.
In any event, you bros don’t know, but MM is an activist in the streets but got himself a colonizer in the sheets.
link to youtube.com
You are showing that Sprint Left one-bucketing thing again and attributing to me positions that I do not hold.
The best argument for not being harsh with the registration requirement is the massive pile of absurd “born yesterday” arguments already being made by registered practitioners every week.
See 1.1.
B-b-but only people with engineering degrees know how to think.
Lulz
The subsequent academic blog on PTAB practice diversity and proposed rule change does not allow comments. However, one is essential for the bizzare assertion that simply requiring pro hoc vice premission [not at all difficult] to practice in the Patent Office at the PTAB for those not licensed to do so “is particularly troublesome considering that federal courts do not subject litigators to these standards—they impose no registration requirement or backup counsel requirement.” The latter must maintain bar registration requirements from at least one state AND must obtain the very same such pro hoc vice permission to practice before a Federal or state court in any other state! As well as understanding and complying with all local court rules. So retention of local counsel backup is almost essential in practice. Furthermore, and importantly, practice before the PTAB and its proceedural rules are quite unlike that of any normal litigation or judicial proceeding. The vast majority of PTAB cases are not even inter partes!
Given the ‘mere litigator’ views on this forum, I would even push in the exact opposite direction and require that litigators have a real understanding — and appreciation — of patent rights by having to have a registration number.
Just look at Intel to see what happens when you turn Woke and accept racism against white and Asian people. Intel collapsed doing this and now is a socialist/fascist corporation controlled by the Biden administration. Black people don’t need standards lowered but their expectations raised. And, again, stop lying about the statistics. By the time black children graduate from high school, there are about 1/3 as many who can read and write at grade level as white and Asian children. Stop lying.
That is the future these Woke communists want for all of us.
B-b-but Western Education is nothing more than systemic Neo-colonialistic oppression. It does not provide for lived realities and alternative truths (like 2+2 may = 5), and glacial studies require Feminist Studies to be Inclusive).
Woke up Man.
“Black people don’t need standards lowered but their expectations raised.”
Listen up, folks! Gramps is a world expert on black people. Kind of a wizard on the subject, actually, if you know what I mean.
You mean that Night Writer is a Democrat (you know, like most such Wizards….)
They just need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps like Night Wiper did.
All of our ancestors used to live in caves or grass huts so nobody can complain that the playing field isn’t level.
So, “The Prophet” attacks me rather than addressing the issue, which is just so Woke.
Address the issue. The pool of qualified black applicants is much smaller than the percentage of black people in the general population. As Hillary said, 90% of the problem with black people in the job market occurs in the first 10 years of a black person’s life.
These papers that claim racism because black lawyers, agents, or inventors are underrepresented are offensive. They are clearly wrong as black people are generally overrepresented relative to the number of qualified candidates.
Anyone who has ever hired people for a professional job knows this and knows that ESG/Larry Fink has set it up so that you have to have percentages of black people to do business with the corporations Fink controls. This has led to a massive demand for attorneys who are black.
Anyway, I am sure I will get back from you some slur against me. Or some Woke remark that only experts should speak on such matters, which again is part of Woke/Marxist movement.
Gramps isn’t r-a-c-I-s-t, folks! He just says the same stuff that r-a-c-I-s-t-s say. And he gets his news from r-a-c-i-s-t-s because he’s open-minded and curious. You betcha.
Says the guy who fully imbibes in the Sprint Left identity politics that is more Racyist than anything else in this day and age.
The sad thing is that people like MM have two paths. They either win and we all live under tyranny and suffer. Only the elites in a society the Ds are forming have rights. The Republic wins and MM eventually comes around an shucks off his mental illness but never apologizes or realizes just how heinous a human being he has been.
Read about the Red Guard under Mao.
So, here we are with the Woke communist’s only answer to facts is to call people names and yap out nonsense. The age of reason does not apply to the Woke communists.
They are fighting to tear the country down so they can build their communist utopia that their leaders promise them.
The Ds are a bunch of elites that foment division and chaos for their own gain. People like MM are mentally ill. I saw this same type of mental illness when I was in the USSR in the 1980’s. And I see this same type of mental illness when I argue with Chinese people I know who are here working in the USA.
Congratulation, I guess, on being invited to join Erik Prince’s Off Leash WhatsApp group chat.
Breeze, try to make a comment that includes content beyond slander and name calling. You are a sad little Red Guard member.
If I posted comments from Mr. Prince’s c!rcle j#rk and comments from you they would be indistinguishable.
And that’s a fact.
I have no idea who Erik Prince is. And try to understand that if people disagree with you that doesn’t make them ev1l. Try to argue with people in the marketplace of ideas.
Just two quick examples: John Ratcliff said years ago that what Biden was doing was going to start a war by allowing the Iranians to make 10’s or 100’s of billions of dollars from selling oil. Douglas MacGregor has predicted the outcome of the Ukrainian war and accurately estimated the Ukrainian losses before the leak from the Pentagon. Remember 40K went to 400K. MacGregor said 400k and said we would lose the war two years.
Try to listen to alternative news. There are many geniuses that simply do not agree with the narratives you are selling. Like Steve Pinkerton. Eric Weinstein. And so forth.
Try harder.
And those two examples prove…what?
Breeze, those examples are just a couple of many. Those examples should show you that the news media you are consuming is lying to you.
There are few people (with IQs over 150) who aren’t members of elite benefiting from their policies who actually believe a word that Biden or the corporate media say.
Biden started these wars. Read about this case Murthy v. Missouri. Read the 5th Circuit’s opinion. It is now before the Scotus. Google won’t let me provide a link to the case. Biden is the totalitarian.
Stop dehumanizing people who don’t agree with you and spend some time figuring out what is going on.
“Biden started these wars.”
You are beyond irrational.
“Read the 5th Circuit’s opinion.”
Lulz
In Murthy v. Missouri, “Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the lifting of the injunctions, with Alito writing, ‘Government censorship of private speech is antithetical to our democratic form of government, and therefore today’s decision is highly disturbing.'”
Contrast J. Alito’s position in Murthy v. Missouri with his position in Netchoice v. Paxton. Hint: he was fine with Texas’s law regulating social media. I wonder what the differences in those two cases could possibly be.
Netchoice v. Paxton is about editors of social media favoring one political viewpoint over another and the issue is that the social platforms have immunity from defamation lawsuits and are abusing that power.
Murthy v. Missouri is about the Biden administration, the FBI, DHS and others targeting specific people and posts and pressuring the social media platforms to take them down or to ban the person. This is a direct challenge to our First Amendment rights.
Regarding starting the wars: watch this. link to x.com
There are literally dozens of other people who say the same thing. John Radcliff predicted that Biden was going to start a war with Hamas by lifting the sanctions from Iran.
“Netchoice v. Paxton is about editors of social media favoring one political viewpoint over another…”
And it is their 1st Amendment right to do so. But not according to Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton. And “Justice” Alito.
“… and the issue is that the social platforms have immunity from defamation lawsuits and are abusing that power.”
That is not the issue in Netchoice v. Paxton.
Smelly,
Even you should be able to grasp the difference with social media platforms.
To pretend otherwise is just not smart.
Breeze, the two cases are not strongly related.
And, yes, the issue in Netchoice v. Paxton is about the fact that the social media platforms have special privileges from the government.
Murthy v. Missouri is about the government suppressing free speech based on their political views.
I notice the way you pick out little bits of what I say and don’t address the rest of it.
Night Writer – that’s called selection (or confirmation) bias.
Often happens when ‘The Narrative’ must be maintained.
“Those examples should show you that the news media you are consuming is lying to you.”
Pretty sure even Breeze knows that by now.
No 6, not when it comes to The Narrative.
He instantly becomes another Sheeple due to his feelings about the Sprint Left religion.
So you think standards should be lowered? Is that because you think they aren’t capable?
Reminds me of several more Democrat snafus…
Further to comment 1, how is it unreasonable or discriminatory to require pro hoc vice permission for an unlicensed attorney to represent a client at the PTAB, when that same attorney is also required to do so in any court in any state that atttorney is also unlicensed, even though the differences between state courts are trivial in comparison to the differences in the PTAB’s unique ex parte or inter partes, appeal or trial, administrative proceedings?
[P.S. I understand that the AIPLA comments would want a special need to be shown for the pro hoc vice permission, but if granted would not necessarily require a PTO licensed backup counsel?]
[Which leads to the general political or philisophical question of whether PTO rules like this should consider the decreasing of the protection of inventors and patent owner clients from hiring attorneys unfamiliar with the PTAB’s unique ex parte or inter partes (appeal or trial) administrative proceedings?]