1 No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States B&B HARDWARE, INC., v. Petitioner, HARGIS INDUSTRIES, INC., D/B/A SEALTITE BUILDING FASTENERS, D/B/A EAST TEXAS FASTENERS, et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PETITIONER NOR RESPONDENTS CHARLES W. SHIFLEY* BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. 10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL (312) DONALD W. RUPERT MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL (312) September 10, 2014 GARRET LEACH PRESIDENT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO P.O. Box 472 Chicago, IL (312) *Counsel of Record
2 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT... 3 I. THERE IS A DICHOTOMY OF TTAB CASES... 3 II. TTAB CASES ROUTINELY FUNCTION AS TYPICAL LITIGATION CASES, WITH DISCOVERY AND TRIAL... 7 III. THE PLACE OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT MAY NEED TO BE RESOLVED, BY THE LOWER COURTS IN THIS CASE CONCLUSION... 13
3 Cases ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 3M Co. v. Professional Gallery, Inc., Opposition No (July 17, 2014)... 3, 4, 7, 10 Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962) Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) Granfinanciera, SA v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33 (1989) In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973)... 4 In re New York Football Giants, Inc., Serial No (slip op. July 3, 2014)... 5, 6 Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computers Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990)... 6 Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) Rules Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence... 9 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP) 702,
4 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago ( IPLAC ) submits this brief as amicus curiae, but in support of neither party on the ultimate merits of the case. 1,2,3,4 Founded in 1884, 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.6, no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in any part, no such counsel or a party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief, and no person other than the amicus curiae, its members, or its counsel, made such a monetary contribution. 2 In addition to the required statement of footnote 1, IPLAC adds that after reasonable investigation, IPLAC believes that (a) no member of its Board or Amicus Committee who voted to prepare this brief, or any attorney in the law firm or corporation of such a member, represents a party to this litigation in this matter, (b) no representative of any party to this litigation participated in the authorship of this brief, and (c) no one other than IPLAC, or its members who authored this brief and their law firms or employers, made a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. 3 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, counsel of record received timely notice of the intent to file this brief under the Rule and consent was granted. 4 Although over 30 federal judges are honorary members of IPLAC, none of them was consulted or participated in any way regarding this brief.
5 2 the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago is a voluntary bar association of over 1,000 members who practice in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and the legal issues they present. IPLAC is the country s oldest bar association devoted exclusively to intellectual property matters. In litigation, IPLAC s members are split about equally between plaintiffs and defendants. Its members include attorneys, in private and corporate practices, who appear before federal bars throughout the United States, as well as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office. As part of its central objectives, IPLAC is dedicated to aiding in the development of intellectual property law, especially in the federal courts. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In resolving this case and the rule of law that should apply, the Supreme Court should be aware of three matters: (1) that a significant dichotomy exists in the nature of cases resolved by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (sometimes TTAB ), (2) that TTAB cases routinely function as typical litigation cases, with discovery and trial, pursuant in part to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, and (3) that since the TTAB does not have juries, the Court must decide what to do about the Seventh Amendment right to a jury. On the point (1) dichotomy, some cases are resolved in a manner that permits evidence on and an assessment of the real world usage of trademarks of one of the parties. But other cases are resolved in a manner that disallows evidence on and an assessment of real world usage of
6 3 either party. In no case does the TTAB permit evidence on and assessment of the real world usage of trademarks of all parties. On point (2), the routine functioning of TTAB cases, appropriate cases are handled in major part as typical federal litigation cases, by the same lawyers who handle typical federal court trademark litigation. On point (3), the Seventh Amendment may commit likelihood of confusion decisions to juries, such that in jury situations, no preclusive effect of TTAB decisions is possible. ARGUMENT I. THERE IS A DICHOTOMY OF TTAB CASES Consistent with the summary above, some TTAB cases are resolved in a manner that permits evidence on and an assessment of the real world usage of trademarks by one of the parties. These cases involve challenges to federal trademark registrations based on common law usages of trademarks. A typical case in this group of cases is 3M Co. v. Professional Gallery, Inc., Opposition No (July 17, 2014)(available at ttabvue/v?pno= &pty=opp&eno=98 ). Professional Gallery applied to register FLAG- IT! for adhesive-backed labels, and a form of adhesive-backed plastic film. 3M opposed, on the basis of its rights in POST-IT, both by virtue of federal registrations and common law. The TTAB began its consideration of likelihood of confusion, as
7 4 it typically does, with a statement that it would analyze all facts in evidence related to likelihood of confusion. Pursuant to In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (CCPA 1973), it analyzed the fame of the POST-IT mark, the FLAG-IT! and POST- IT marks themselves, their relative strength and weakness, the services on which the marks were used, the parties channels of trade and the classes of consumers of their products, the conditions of sales, and actual confusion. There is no indication of any lack of attention to marketplace circumstances. The analysis reflected in the opinion appears evenhanded and is commendable. Consistent with 3M, the TTAB decisions on likelihood of confusion based on common law rights, as in 3M, are typically remarkably professional. They are typically written at a high level of attention to the details of the substantive facts, procedural facts, substantive law, and procedural law. They are also typically written at a high level of language, grammar and usage. They typically capture the common law rights as to the challenger s goods or services by stating a capturing description of the goods or services, in quotation marks. The opinions typically give the impression of being the work of battle-hardened veterans. To the extent an opinion lacks discussion of aspects of the challenger s real world usage of a trademark, the challenger has typically lacked for evidence to present to the TTAB, or lacked in following procedure that would permit the presentation of the evidence. The cases typically do not lack for discussion of evidence in the presence of evidence.
8 5 But, in contrast, some cases are resolved in a manner that disallows evidence on and an assessment of the real world usage of trademarks by either of the parties. These cases involve challenges to federal trademark registrations based on other federal trademark registrations. A case in this group of cases is In re New York Football Giants, Inc., Serial No (slip op. July 3, 2014)(available at &pty=exa&eno=18 ). The case is not typical, in that it explains the law that disallows the consideration of real world usage of a challenger s trademark. The case, however, is typical of those disallowing the consideration. As the New York Football Giants case explains at some length, based on a direct challenge to the rule of law, a category of the cases that are presented to the TTAB require that the TTAB must analyze the likelihood of confusion involved strictly based on the descriptions of goods or services stated in a federal registration and a federal registration application. These descriptions, while prepared by the parties, and presumably intended when written to capture at least in part real world usages, sometimes do not capture what parties consider to be their real world usages at the time of the TTAB proceedings. Nevertheless, the TTAB cannot consider contentions based on new perceptions of real world usages. For example, in New York Football Giants, the New York Football Giants, Inc., sought to register G- MEN for the articles of clothing, i.e., shirts, T-shirts, and tops. The registration was refused, and appealed to the TTAB. The reason for refusal was an existing
9 6 registration for GMAN Sport for articles of clothing including T-shirts and tank tops. The applicant New York Giants argued that it was the most grievous error possible in likelihood of confusion analysis to make the decision divorced from marketplace circumstances. Id., at 2. The TTAB stated it understood the refused applicant to be contending in a direct argument that the precedent precluding consideration of real world usage was in error. Id., 3. The TTAB reviewed relevant precedent. Id. It reasoned that the applicant s argument had been similarly made in a past case and rejected by the Federal Circuit, citing Octocom Systems Inc. v. Houston Computers Services, Inc., 918 F.2d 937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Id. There, the Federal Circuit stated that the precedent was legion that the decision of likelihood of confusion in this group of cases was to be made regardless of what the record may reveal as to the particular nature of an applicant s goods, the particular channel of trade or the class of purchasers to which sales of the goods are directed. Id., 4-5, quotation from Octocom. The TTAB in New York Football Giants, as a result, refused consideration of real world circumstances. Thus, a significant dichotomy exists in the nature of cases resolved by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The dichotomy concerns likelihood of confusion cases, the cases that are the subject of this case. Some TTAB cases are resolved in a manner that permits consideration of evidence and an assessment of the real world usage of trademarks of
10 7 one of the parties. But other TTAB cases are resolved in a manner that disallows evidence on and an assessment of real world usage of either party. Of course, the companion to this dichotomy is that in no case does the TTAB consider the real world usage of a registered trademark that is being challenged, or a pending trademark application that is being challenged. The TTAB judges the rights in the mark by the statement of goods or services that are found in the registration certificate of the registered trademark, and that alone. It judges the pending application by the statement of goods or services found in the application alone. II. TTAB CASES ROUTINELY FUNCTION AS TYPICAL LITIGATION CASES, WITH DISCOVERY AND TRIAL Referencing the 3M case again, it can be seen readily that TTAB cases of the type that involve real world usages of trademarks routinely function procedurally as typical federal litigation cases, with discovery and trial (with written transcripts). An on-line record of the proceedings of the 3M case, for example, is at the same address as above, y=opp&eno=89. As in the 3M record, TTAB cases can include familiar federal litigation matters, such as all of the following: pleadings, e.g., docket item 4, motions to amend pleadings, e.g., docket item 32, scheduling orders, e.g., docket item 3,
11 8 negotiated confidential information protective orders, e.g., docket item 6, stipulations and extensions of time, e.g., docket item 8, service and responses to discovery requests, such as interrogatories and document requests, with associated motions to compel, with briefs and exhibits, including declarations and exchanges of letters of counsel, e.g., docket item 10 (with its many exhibits), notices for taking depositions, and the taking and defending of depositions, e.g., docket item 22, motions to quash notices and bar witnesses, e.g., docket item 63, motions for summary judgment, with extensive declarations and exhibits, e.g., docket item 43, motions to defer summary judgment motions to allow for the taking of discovery, e.g., docket item 47, occasional confusion over procedure and associated issues, docket item 21, the occasional changes of attorneys, e.g., docket item 31, gathering and producing evidence, including testimony and trial exhibits, and pretrial filings that give notice of evidence, e.g., docket item 70, and extensive trial briefs, with numerous case citations, extensive analyses of evidence, and elaborate arguments, e.g., docket item 90. These are all the stuff of typical federal litigation. Can anyone doubt the high and federal quality of the efforts and advocacy of the participants in these cases when a representative trial brief, docket item
12 9 90, is a tour de force and begins with a dramatic rhetorical question, in this case Can anyone really remember life before POST-IT notes? 5 The TTAB also follows both the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. See, e.g., appeal/guidelines/ttabfaq.jsp. See also the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP), available at trademarks/process/appeal/preface_tbmp.jsp. A principal difference between federal court litigation and TTAB litigation is one that has nothing to do with the substance of the proceedings. It is the difference that the TTAB works with a written record, including written transcripts of testimony, and does not preside over the taking of the testimony. TBMP at But the great engine for the discovery of truth, cross-examination, is available for every witness through deposition. TBMP at 702, Further, the topics of the evidence involved in TTAB cases can include television commercials, media spots, and more broadly, television shows and movies, catalogs, inserts in magazines and newspapers, merchandising and promotional displays, information on direct mail and trade shows, Internet website information, information on sponsorships of sporting events, and summaries of data of 5 IPLAC would gladly claim the advocacy for a member, but no counsel in the case is or was a member of IPLAC, to IPLAC s knowledge.
13 10 impressions. The evidence of the trial record can run to hundreds of pages, even within one category of evidence. 3M, slip op. at 23. This is not a kangaroo court, and it is not populated by kangaroo court judges. TTAB judges possess law degrees, are admitted to the bar of a State, and before even joining the TTAB, have preexisting significant, specialized trademark experience. See e.g., https://www. usajobs.gov/get Job/Print Preview/ #. Their PTQs, i.e., Professional Technical Qualifications, include the following: 1) Training and experience leading to a thorough knowledge of historical trademark law concepts, the Trademark Act, The Trademark Rules of Practice, The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, The Federal Rules of Evidence, trademark assignments and licensing, common law governing the acquisition of ownership rights of marks, and precedential decisions of the courts and the Board. 2) Experience demonstrating an ability to sift through pleadings, motions and exhibits thereto, testimony depositions and exhibits thereto, interrogatories and other discovery requests and responses thereto, documentary evidence filed by notice of reliance, and legal briefs, all to find the important facts in a case and to apply pertinent case law to those facts. 3) Demonstrated ability to write clearly and accurately; in particular the ability to state clearly the
14 11 material facts in a case, the law to be applied and the reasons supporting the decision. Id. III. THE PLACE OF THE SEVENTH AMENDMENT MAY NEED TO BE RESOLVED, BY THE LOWER COURTS IN THIS CASE As shown, some TTAB cases consider real world usage of trademarks, and TTAB cases are conducted routinely as typical federal litigation cases. But still, the TTAB does not have juries. The federal government in its sovereign capacity under the valid federal trademark laws created the federal trademark registration system and the rights that arise from it. Administrative fact-finding by the TTAB as to registration rights plainly does not implicate the Seventh Amendment. See Granfinanciera, SA v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 51 (1989). Thus, insofar as the TTAB is deciding federal registration rights in all its cases, it may do so, with binding results. But administrative fact-finding by the TTAB that would bind parties against jury trials over wholly common-law rights would implicate the Seventh Amendment. Id. If the Seventh Amendment provides a right to trial of likelihood of confusion as an issue of trademark infringement litigation, then binding parties in such litigations to TTAB decisions would violate the Seventh Amendment, unless the right to trial by jury were to be waived.
15 12 If the Court should choose to decide whether a TTAB decision on likelihood of confusion could bind litigation parties in relation to their common law rights, the Court would need to conduct the historical analysis required by such cases as Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, (1987). While not reflecting that it has conducted the analysis in detail, the Court has already stated that an action for damages based upon a charge of trademark infringement would be subject to cognizance by a court of law, meaning that it would require a jury. Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469, 477 (1962). The Court has also stated that actions seeking damages for invasions of property rights were historically tried in courts of law. Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340, 349 (1998). If the Court were to consider the right to trial by jury to be an undeveloped issue of the case, return of the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings might be appropriate. Both parties filed jury demands, there was a district court decision that the issues were to be tried to the jury, in spite of a motion otherwise, there was a jury trial, and respondents assert the superiority of the jury decision to the TTAB decision. There would not seem to be the possibility of waiver here, even with the right to jury trial not mentioned in the post-trial briefs in the district court, the court of appeal briefs, or the briefs in this Court. E.g., Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506 (1962)(silence is not waiver (a right to counsel case)).
16 13 CONCLUSION In resolving this case and the rule of law that should apply, the Supreme Court should be aware as follows: (1) a significant dichotomy exists in the nature of cases resolved by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, (2) TTAB cases routinely function as typical federal litigation cases, with discovery and trial, pursuant in part to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Evidence, and (3) the Seventh Amendment may be implicated and trump any other consideration in the case. Respectfully submitted, CHARLES W. SHIFLEY* BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. 10 South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, IL (312) DONALD W. RUPERT MARSHALL, GERSTEIN & BORUN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive 6300 Willis Tower Chicago, IL GARRET LEACH PRESIDENT THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO P.O. Box 472 Chicago, IL (312) Counsel for Amicus Curiae The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago September 10, 2014 *Counsel of Record
The trademark lawyer as brand manager This text first appeared in the IAM magazine supplement Brands in the Boardroom 2005 May 2005 For further information please visit www.iam-magazine.com Feature The
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Supreme Court s Decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Finds That TTAB Rulings Can Have a Preclusive Effect on Later Federal Court Trademark Infringement Proceedings April 2, 2015 AUTHORS
Case 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation;
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE In the Matter of a ) Uniform Pretrial Order ) ) Administrative Order 3AO-03-04 (Amended) UNIFORM PRETRIAL ORDER In order
THIS DISPOSITION 12/19/01 IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT Paper No. 8 OF THE T.T.A.B. BAC UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Zarak Systems Corporation Serial No.
Mailed: May 13, 2003 THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Paper No. 9 RFC UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board James P. Cecil, Inc. v. Enterprise
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 2008 WI 37 NOTICE This order is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 07-12 In the matter
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB JUNE 16, 00 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Response, Inc. v. Service Response Technology,
ARTICLES The Appellate Mandate: What It Is and Why It Matters By Jennifer L. Swize Just the other day, a trial team handling post-appeal matters on remand wanted to know the significance of the mandate
Joel I. Sher, Chapter 11 Trustee, * IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No.: RDB 10-1895 SAF Financial, Inc., et al., * Defendants. * * * * *
Last amended by Order dated March 1, 2011; effective May 2, 2011. RULES OF SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART FOUR PRETRIAL PROCEDURES, DEPOSITIONS AND PRODUCTION AT TRIAL Rule 4:5. Depositions Upon Oral Examination.
A Practical Summary of the New Supreme Court Civil Rules for Clark Wilson LLP Insurance Clients by: Jennifer Loeb Clark Wilson LLP tel. 604.891.7766 email@example.com Edited by: Larry Munn Clark Wilson LLP
Mailing: April 20, 2005 This Opinion is Not Citable as Precedent of the TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
LOCAL RULES FOR FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI [Renumbered and codified by order of the Supreme Court effective May 18, 2006; amended effective April 23, 2009.] RULE 1. ASSIGNMENT OF CASES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. No. 2:15-cv-343-NT BRANCH RIVER PLASTICS, INC., et al., Defendants MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
RULE 10 FUNDS HELD BY THE CLERK 10.1 General. A Judge of the District Court may order that any monies in actions pending before the Court be invested in any local financial institution for safe keeping.
SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2010. CRAIG A. GARGOTTA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE: ' CASE NO. 09-12799-CAG
Case :-ap-0-rk Doc Filed 0/0/ Entered 0/0/ :: Desc Main Document Page of 0 In re: L. Scott Apparel, Inc., NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Debtor. Howard
Paper No. 29 HRW THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MARCH 9, 99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Theodore E. Charles v. The
9/25/01 THIS DISPOSITION Paper No. 12 IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT RLS/LG OF THE T.T.A.B. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Sonnet Technologies, Inc. Serial
03/22/01 THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B. Paper No. 13 AFD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Premier Products, Inc. Serial No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) Criminal No. 07-29-P-S ) HALVOR CARL, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS Halvor Carl, charged with
Case 06-03280 Document 35 Filed in TXSB on 11/27/06 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE DAVID WIMBERLY, CASE NO. 05-81669-G3-13 Debtor,
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: May 16, 2003 Paper No. 23 Bottorff UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Kendro Laboratory Products
Opinion issued April 19, 2016 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-15-00361-CV FREDDIE L. WALKER, Appellant V. RISSIE OWENS, PRESIDING OFFICER OF THE TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND
CAUSE NO. STATE S EXHIBIT #1 THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE 49th DISTRICT COURT VS. OF ZAPATA COUNTY, TEXAS PLEA OF GUILTY, ADMONISHMENTS, VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS, WAIVERS, STIPULATION & JUDICIAL CONFESSION (Defendant
CIVIL APPEALS PAMPHLET FOR THE PRO BONO PROJECT SPONSORED AND ADMINISTERED BY THE PRO BONO COMMITTEES FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS APPELLATE SECTION AND THE HOUSTON BAR ASSOCIATION APPELLATE SECTION IN THE
T.C. Memo. 2015-26 UNITED STATES TAX COURT RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION B. SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent RICHARD E. SNYDER AND MARION SNYDER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER
JUSTICE GERALD E. LOEHR, J.S.C. Rockland County Supreme Court 1 South Main Street New City, New York 10956 Courtroom 1 Tel: (845) 483-8343 Fax: (845) 708-7236 Staff Bruce J. Pearl, Principal Law Secretary
Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying
Case4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE (Revised
Challenging Patent Validity in the USPTO: Strategic Considerations in View of the USPTO s Final Rules Inter Partes Review Presented By: Karl Renner Dorothy Whelan Co-Chairs of Post Grant Practice, Fish
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND JOAN FALLOWS KLUGE, Plaintiff, v. Civil No. L-10-00022 LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, Joan Fallows
2015 IL App (1st) 141310-U FIRST DIVISION October 5, 2015 No. 1-14-1310 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
Case 4:04-cv-03526 Document 84 Filed in TXSD on 02/02/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ALEXANDER WARDLAW, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-04-3526
What to Expect In Your Lawsuit A lawsuit is a marathon not a sprint. Stewart R. Albertson. There is a saying that the wheels of justice move slowly. That is as true today as when it was initially stated.
Case 1:06-cv-01892-CKK Document 30 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COVAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 06 1892 (CKK) REVONET,
Case :-cv-000-mjp Document Filed /0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE MICROSOFT CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, v. Plaintiff, ALF TEMME, individually
Case 3:09-cv-00432-HEH Document 77 Filed 02/19/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MINNESOTA LAWYERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,
Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS Misc. Docket No. 93-0141L APPROVAL OF LOCAL RULES OF CIVIL TRIAL OF THE 241ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY ORDERED: Pursuant to Rule 3a of the Texas Rules of Civil
Case 3:12-cv-08123-HRH Document 521 Filed 10/27/14 Page 1 of 7 WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TOWN OF COLORADO CITY,
Document Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Charlotte Division IN RE: GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES LLC 1, et al. Debtors. Case No. 10-31607 Chapter 11
Case: 10-10823 Date Filed: 10/13/2010 Page: 1 of 7 [PUBLISH] CARLOS SHURICK, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 10-10823 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 6:07-cv-01974-GAP-GJK
Case 5:13-cv-04137-JWL-JPO Document 16 Filed 02/04/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the use and benefit of LAWRENCE KEVIN WRIGHT,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN STEVEN OLSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 12-C-1126 BEMIS COMPANY, INC. et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
THE U.S. VERSUS EUROPEAN TRADEMARK REGISTRATION SYSTEMS: Could Either Learn From The Other? Cynthia C. Weber Sughrue Mion, PLLC The question I was asked to address is whether there are any aspects of the
City of Seattle OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING EXAMINER RULES FOR WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES Adopted May 8, 2014 Office of Hearing Examiner 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4000 Mailing: PO Box 94729 Seattle,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In re: : THIERRY P. DELOS : BK No. 08-11548 Debtor Chapter 7 : STACIE L. DELOS, Plaintiff : v. : A.P.
This article originally appeared in The Colorado Lawyer, Vol. 25, No. 26, June 1996. by Jeffrey R. Pilkington TORT AND INSURANCE LAW REPORTER Informal Discovery Interviews Between Defense Attorneys and
Hunt Biggs LLP provides a full range of Intellectual Property Services. Our goal is to deliver personalized high quality Intellectual Property services in a direct, approachable and cost effective way.
3/27/02 THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Paper No. 11 AD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re The Biltmore Company a/k/a Biltmore Estate
Case 1:09-cv-21435-MGC Document 208 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 6 E. JENNIFER NEWMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 09-21435-Civ-COOKE/TURNOFF vs. Plaintiff
The Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements By: Thomas J. Smith The Law Offices of Thomas J. Smith San Antonio, Texas NIGHTMARE ON MEDIATION STREET You mediate a case where the Plaintiff is suing
Friday 31st October, 2008. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective January 1, 2009. Amend Rules
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA At a Regular Term of the Supreme Court of Appeals, continued and held at Charleston, Kanawha County, on September 29, 2014, the following order was made and entered: Re: Approval
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER ) NOE RODRIGUEZ, ) Complainant, ) 8 U.S.C. 1324b Proceeding ) v. ) OCAHO Case
Case 1:98-cv-01232-CKK Document 854 Filed 06/25/2007 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Civil Action
Case 2:10-cv-00802-CW Document 90 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION MURIELLE MOLIERE, Plaintiff, v. OPTION ONE MORTGAGE, et al., Defendants.
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
Case 2:04-cv-01053-HGB-DEK Document 190 Filed 07/25/07 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 04-1053 EDUCATION MANAGEMENT,
Case 2:06-cv-02026-CM Document 104 Filed 01/23/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. No. 06-2026-CM
5/3/01 THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Paper No. 9 RFC UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Venture Insurance Company Serial No. 75/573,049
Case 5:06-cv-00503-XR Document 20 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, VS. Plaintiff, HENRY D. GOLTZ, EVANGELINA
Case 1:09-cr-00188-MEF-WC Document 64 Filed 03/15/10 Page 1 of 9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) CR CASE
Case 3:07-cv-00952-L Document 26 Filed 03/13/08 Page 1 of 6 PageID 979 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION RAFFAELE M. PANDOZY, Ph.D., Plaintiff, v. Civil Action
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION PHILADELPHIA FACTORS, INC. : JUNE TERM, 2002 v. : No. 1726 THE WORKING DATA GROUP, INC.,
Case 5:13-cv-00982-OLG Document 108 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CLEOPATRA DE LEON, NICOLE DIMETMAN, VICTOR HOLMES, and
Submitted via email (TTAB_Settlement_comments@USPTO.gov) The Honorable Karen Kuhlke Administrative Law Judge United States Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop Comments TTAB Post Office Box 1451 Alexandria,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAD OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION 1804-14 GREEN STREET ASSOCIATES, : June Term 2006 L.P., : Plaintiff, : No. 1763 v. : ERIE
ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1022-Orl-22KRS SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. and SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendants.
LOCAL RULES OF THE HARRIS COUNTY CIVIL COURTS AT LAW RULE 1. OBJECTIVE Purpose of Rules. The objective of the rules of the county civil courts at law of Harris County is to obtain a just, fair, equitable
JUSTICE LINDA S. JAMIESON COMMERCIAL DIVISION RULES Supreme Court of the State of New York Westchester County Courthouse 111 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard White Plains, New York 10601 Courtroom
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ' PENINSULA ADVISORS, LLC and AlP RESORT DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. C. A. No. 0-489-LPS FAIRSTAR RESOURCES LTD., Defendant. i J MEMORANDUM
IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT, PREBLE COUNTY, OHIO IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LOCAL RULES: ENTRY The following local rules are adopted to govern the practice and procedures of this Court, subject
[Doc. No. 91] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION, Plaintiff, Civil No. 04-1512 (RBK) v. EQUITY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Docket No.: 08-C-794 Caroline McMullen v. Donald L. Lamoureux ORDER In this motor vehicle personal injury case, the plaintiff, Caroline McMullen
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE : AL JAZEERA AMERICA, LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 8823-VCG : AT&T SERVICES, INC., : : Defendant. : : MOTION TO STAY OCTOBER 14, 2013 LETTER OPINION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE EDWIN SCARBOROUGH, Defendant Below- Appellant, v. STATE OF DELAWARE, Plaintiff Below- Appellee. No. 38, 2014 Court Below Superior Court of the State of Delaware,
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB MAY 12, 00 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Orbital Sciences Corp. Serial No. 75/081,396