I believe there are a few important life-phrases to master: “I’m sorry;” “I didn’t know that;” and “tell me more.”
Inc.com has a list of 9 things great leaders say that I find shareworthy: nine phrases that should roll off your lips every single day.
I wrote ten because I really like the addition of “I didn’t know that” to “tell me more.” Your team wants to know that you recognize there are limits to your knowledge, are interested in their insights, and you value the source enough to listen.
Is there a fan club for Magistrate Judge Grewal yet? Recently seated on the bench in 2010 and with a pedigree of decided interest, the judge keeps it interesting:
This afternoon the court sat down to consider the various motions on the docket that are pending and in some cases submitted in this patent case. Coffee in hand, and eager to turn to the substantive and intellectually stimulating disputes regarding infringement, willfulness, and the like, the court was stopped dead in its tracks by the usual culprit in such crimes: various motions to file materials under seal.
Stating that parties all too often misunderstand what level of harm is “sufficient to keep the public from knowing what is happening in courts such as this one that it pays for,” the Court explains that “[w]hile the court cannot offer an all-encompassing definition of harm for this purpose, it can say what is not harm. Disclosing an expert’s testimony about his patent validity opinions is not harm. Disclosing an inventor’s testimony about what exactly it is he claimed in his patents is not harm. Disclosing what products a party had sold to the public is not harm. It is certainly not harm that other litigants in other cases involving the asserted patent might come to know certain positions a party is taking in this case.”
The Court makes an apparent misstep in its concluding paragraphs, confusing the plaintiff with defendant, but the motions to seal were Apple’s (Dkt. Nos. 342, 344, 347, and 349).
Apple is represented by DLA Piper and Greenberg Traurig. Case No. 5:11-CV-01079-PSG (N.D. Cal.).
Marshall Feature Recognition claims infringement by QR code in the E.D. of Texas against Toni&Guy USA, Anheuser-Busch, CVS Caremark, Target, Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Corp., and HJ Heinz Company. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 6,886,750 (“Method and apparatus for accessing electronic data via a familiar printed medium”) filed Jan. 2001, and issued May 2005. Marshall Feature Recognition alleges that the infringing act is: “requir[ing] and/or direct[ing] users to access and/or use Quick Response Codes (“QR Codes”) printed on Defendant’s commercial advertisements, in a manner claimed in the ’750 patent. Defendant infringes the ‘750 patent by providing printed commercial documents that have at least one machine recognizable feature i.e. a QR Code.” Complaint ¶ 11.
I was just going to list a few claims, but it really is a patent to behold and appreciate in full (especially the claims re the information superhighway, claim 41–56). See below for all claims. But first, a few paragraphs from the complaint re the accused method of infringement. Marshall Feature Recognition is represented by Austin Hansley.
The Ultimate Cheat Sheet For Dealing With Excuses, by James Altucher on TechCrunch preaches to the back-row bunch. What do you want to do that you’re not doing because you tell yourself:
- I don’t have money.
- I don’t have equipment.
- I don’t have time.
- I’m not good enough.
- I don’t have a degree.
- I’m not in the right location.
- I don’t have the right network.
- It’s too crazy.
- I don’t have talent.
This is one of those great motivational articles we need to keep in our back pocket. If it was the 1980s, your grandmother would have cut it out of her newspaper, along with a perfectly on-point Dear Abby, and given it to you the next time she saw you. I’m going to fold this up and put it in my digital back pocket for those days when I need a kick in the pants.
Magistrate Judge Grewal of the Northern District of California has the kind of writing style that keeps reading opinions interesting. In Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5-11-cv-01079 (N.D. Cal.), Apple petitioned the court for a stay pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
It has been observed that the U.S. Supreme Court’s relationship to patent law sometimes seems like that of a non-custodial parent who spends an occasional weekend with the kids1. . . . And so when the Supreme Court decides to consider an issue that is presently and fiercely contested before a trial court, it might seem obvious that the trial court should call a time-out by issuing a stay. . . . [T]he court concludes that a stay under the present circumstance would NOT be appropriate. . . . [O]f the 22 claims of the patent-in-suit asserted against [defendant], 10 are apparatus claims, which Akamai does not address. . . .
[I]f the Supreme Court is the non-custodial parent of patent law, the Federal Circuit must be viewed, and respected, as the custodial parent who endures the daily grind of keeping the law on the straight and narrow. While this court must of course follow any change imposed by the Supreme Court, a majority of this nation’s highest patent court have spoken on the issue of proof requirements for indirect infringement claims. It would be disrespectful of that custodial parent’s efforts to presume that a reversal is coming.
Judge Guilford of the Central District of California reminds parties of Judge Kozinski’s advice “that the best way to tell a judge that you have a weak case is to write a ‘fat brief,’ and that simple arguments are winning arguments while long and convoluted arguments are ‘sleeping pills on paper.'” Univ. Elecs. v. Univ. Remote Control, No. 8:12-CV-00329 (C.D. Cal.).