In re Kollar: A Licensing Exception to The Section 102(b) Bar for Process Patents
|
|
- Rosaline Lindsey
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 In re Kollar: A Licensing Exception to The Section 102(b) Bar for Process Patents By Roderick M. Thompson of Farella Braun + Martel LLP Copyright 2003 Roderick M. Thompson
2 The Federal Circuit in In re Kollar stated as established law that "merely granting a license to an invention, without more, does not trigger the on-sale bar." 1 Before Kollar, few cases lent support for such a bright line, which can be read as being at odds with the policy interest served by section 102(b) to prevent the patentee from enjoying the benefits of commercialization beyond the statutory term. Kollar allows a method patentee to grant licenses and realize revenues from that exploitation of the invention without starting the one-year 102(b) clock, so long as none of the licensees sells or offers to sell a product made by the patented process or to perform the process commercially. Kollar is best understood when seen in light of a recent effort by the courts to provide greater certainty and predictability in 102(b) jurisprudence. DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL OFFER FOR SALE IN PFAFF AS PART OF THE QUEST FOR GREATER PREDICTABILITY Section 102(b) provides for the invalidation of a patent if the invention was "in public use or on sale in this country more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States." 2 In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the correct test for applying the 102(b) bar in Pfaff. 3 Before the critical date, the inventor had prepared detailed engineering drawings of his invention for mounting and removing carriers for semiconductor chips, and provided the drawings to his customer. Based on the drawings, the customer issued a purchase order for 30,000 units. After the critical date, the inventor made a prototype and went into production. There was no dispute that the detailed drawings provided an enabling description of the invention but that the invention had not been reduced to practice until after the critical date. The Federal Circuit held the patent invalid as barred by the commercial offer for sale reflected in the acceptance of the purchase order, reasoning the invention was "substantially 2
3 complete" at the time. After reviewing the conflicting case law and the language of section 102(b) as to whether an invalidating offer for sale could be satisfied when there had not been a reduction to practice, the Court affirmed, holding that it was not essential that the invention be reduced to practice in order to be on sale. 4 The Supreme Court determined that the then-existing "totality of the circumstances" test was unnecessarily vague and "seriously undermine[d] the interest in certainty." 5 In Pfaff, the Supreme Court instead adopted a two-part test for invalidating a patent under the onsale bar of section 102(b). In an effort to lend more certainty to the effort, the Court held that a patent is invalid if, prior to the critical date one year before the date the patent application was filed, the invention was: (1) the subject of a commercial offer for sale; and (2) ready for patenting. 6 While Pfaff provided some degree of clarity to the law regarding the on-sale bar in application of the "ready for patenting" prong, questions remained regarding the meaning of the "commercial offer" element of the Pfaff test. The commercial offer for sale was not at issue in Pfaff, as the parties did not dispute that the requisite "offer had been made" and a sale completed before the critical date. 7 The issue facing the Court was whether the invention could have been on sale before it was reduced to practice. While Pfaff set forth the requirement that there be "a commercial offer for sale," it did not spell out what would constitute such an offer. Its focus was on trying to promote certainty and predictability in the law, reasoning that: [T]he product must be the subject of a commercial offer for sale. An inventor can both understand and control the timing of the first commercial marketing of his invention... we 3
4 perceive no reason why unmanageable uncertainty should attend a rule that measures the application of the on-sale bar of 102(b) against the date when an invention that is ready for patenting is first marketed commercially. (Emphasis added). 8 The Pfaff court thus equated the date an invention is first marketed commercially with the date that the product is the subject of a commercial offer for sale. But the Court did not otherwise define the term commercial offer for sale. GROUP ONE: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURSUES THE CERTAINTY LEAD Three years after Pfaff the Federal Circuit added some additional guidance on the meaning of a "commercial offer for sale." The Federal Circuit, in a pre-pfaff case, RCA Corporation v. Data General Corporation, 9 had suggested that an offer for sale need not "rise to the level of a formal 'offer' under contract law principles." Another case had said it was enough that the offer to sell was "definite" and "objectively manifested." 10 Pfaff did not address the issue directly and did not purport to overrule prior precedent on what constitutes a "commercial offer for sale." Nonetheless in Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 11 applying on Pfaff, the Federal Circuit held that in order to constitute a bar under 102(b), "the offer must meet the level of an offer for sale in the contract sense, one that would be understood as such in the commercial community." 12 In Group One, the purported "offer" for sale at issue was based upon a letter from the patentee suggesting that it "could provide the machine and/or the technology and work on a license/royalty basis," followed by preliminary oral discussions of the technology. 13 The district court found (and the Federal Circuit agreed) there was no commercial offer for sale based on "the indefinite nature of the communications between the parties and the lack of specific terms such as price and quantity, finding that these factors suggested preliminary proposals or invitations to negotiate, rather than a formal offer." 14 The district court found 4
5 that while these communications "did not constitute a formal offer for sale in the contract sense, they did constitute an offer for sale in the 102(b) on-sale bar context," relying on the language in RCA set forth above. 15 The Federal Circuit reversed the district court as there was no "commercial offer for sale" that could have resulted in a binding contract by simply accepting the offer. 16 The court went on to note that "the question of whether an invention is the subject of a commercial offer for sale is a matter of Federal Circuit law, to be analyzed under the law of contracts as generally understood." 17 In reaching that holding, the Court rejected the "dictum" in RCA. 18 offer: The Group One court provided some guidance as to what is required by a formal [c]ontract law traditionally recognizes that mere advertising and promoting of a product may be nothing more than an invitation for offers, while responding to such an invitation may itself be an offer. In any given circumstance, who is the offeror, and what constitutes a definite offer, requires looking closely at the language of the proposal itself. Language suggesting a legal offer, such as "I offer" or "I promise" can be contrasted with language suggesting more preliminary negotiations, such as "I quote" or "are you interested." 19 The Federal Circuit cited with approval the UCC, as well as the Restatement (Second) of Contracts ("Restatement") and other established contract treatises as representative of the "substantial body of general contract law, widely shared by both state and federal courts, to which courts can resort in making these determinations." 20 The Group One requirement that there be a formal offer has narrowed the scope of conduct that will result in the application of the on-sale bar. In subsequent cases, conduct that almost certainly would have triggered the on-sale bar prior to Group One has been found not to be a commercial offer for sale under the principles of contract law. 5
6 KOLLAR: THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PROVIDES MORE CERTAINTY BY ANNOUNCING LICENSING EXCEPTION In re Kollar held that licensing a process that is later patented does not trigger the onsale bar. 21 The sale of the "right to commercialize" an invention by itself is insufficient to constitute a commercial offer for sale under 102(b). 22 This decision involved an inventor's pro se appeal from a patent office decision of unpatentability. The Federal Circuit agreed with the patent office that Mr. Kollar's invention, a process for the preparation of dialkyl peroxide, was ready for patenting at the time of his commercial activities. However, the court held the patent office had erred in finding that the invention was the subject of a commercial offer for sale based on an agreement by the inventor's company to provide know-how and to license future patents to Celanese Corporation. The Court explained: A tangible item is on sale when, as we held in Group One, the transaction 'rises to the level of a commercial offer for sale' under the Uniform Commercial Code. When money changes hands as a result of the transfer of title to the tangible item, a sale normally has occurred. A process, however, is a different kind of invention; it consists of acts, rather than a tangible item. It consists of doing something, and therefore has to be carried out or performed. A process is thus not sold in the same sense as is a tangible item. "Know-how" describing what the process consists of and how the process should be carried out may be sold in the sense that the buyer acquires knowledge of the process and obtains the freedom to carry it out pursuant to the terms of the transaction. However, such a transaction is not a "sale" of the invention within the meaning of 102(b) because the process has not been carried out or performed as a result of the transaction. (citation omitted) 23 The Federal Circuit reasoned in Kollar that the know-how license of to-be-patented technology, contained within the broader Celanese research and development agreement, was not a commercial offer for sale or a sale under Group One. The court left open the 6
7 possibility that the licensee, through a sale of a product made by the licensed process, might have invalidated the patent and remanded. 24 That result can be contrasted with Scaltech, Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, LLC, which held that the on-sale bar applies when a inventor offers to use the patented process for the benefit of a third party. 25 In Scaltech, a patentee's offer to process petroleum waste for another using the process embodied in the patent was found to constitute an offer for sale under 102(b). 26 Kollar distinguished Scaltech as involving "an offer to perform the process commercially for consideration," and not "merely the transfer of a license to practice the invention" in exchange for future royalties. 27 To reconcile the cases, courts may focus on whether the offer involves the inventor s actually using the process (as in Scaltech ) or merely licensing the process know-how that will enable others to use it (as in Kollar). The Kollar court suggested an offer by a licensee to perform the process commercially would also constitute a "commercial offer for sale" under Pfaff. KOLLAR MAY CONFLICT WITH THE OVERRIDING POLICY INTEREST BEHIND SECTION 102(B): PREVENTING COMMERCIALIZATION BEYOND THE STATUTORY TERM Federal Circuit cases have identified the purpose of discouraging attempts to extend the length of the effective patent monopoly by commercially exploiting a new invention and only applying for a patent when faced with competition as the most important policy interest served by section 102(b). 28 In particular, "the overriding concern of the on-sale bars [is discouraging] an inventor's attempt to commercialize his invention beyond the statutory term." 29 The Kollar court reasoned that "exempting licenses under a patent from the on-sale bar is not inconsistent" with this policy. The court emphasized that the patent in question was a method patent, covering a process for the preparation of a dialkyl peroxide used to manufacture ethylene glycol. In contrast to the situation involving the sale or offer for sale 7
8 of an apparatus, "the issue concerning the on-sale bar is not whether the process is physically represented or enabled by a written description, but whether the process has been commercialized." As noted, the court emphasized that a process "is not sold in the same sense as is a tangible item." A sale of the know how to perform the process even in written form is not a sale for 102(b) purposes "because the process has not been carried out or performed as a result of the transaction." Although "an inventor may economically benefit somewhat" from by upfront fess or advance royalties, the court explained the "real benefit from commercializing an invention" comes later when "the invention is actually utilized commercially." The court concluded without further explanation that "the grant of a license" is "part of the pre-commercialization process aimed at making the invention commercial." The court noted that its ruling "exempting licenses under a patent from the on- sale bar" would delay occurrence of the event triggering Section 102(b), but reasoned that the ruling would encourage making inventions available to the public, placing them into the hands of the person best able to commercialize them. The Kollar court suggested a rationale to protect small inventors without the means to produce commercial embodiments of the products that can be made from the patented processes. "Many inventors do not have the resources to produce commercial embodiments of their inventions, and therefore the ability to license or assign without fear of triggering the on-sale bar facilitates providing the public with the benefit of their inventions under circumstances in which they might not otherwise have the ability or the incentive to do so." Nonetheless, the Kollar licensing exception is not limited to small inventors. 1 In re Kollar 286 F.3d 1326, (Fed Cir. 2002) U.S.C. 102(b). 3 Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc, 525 U.S. 55, 119 S.Ct. 304 (1998). 8
9 4 Pfaff, 525 U.S. at Pfaff, 525 U.S. 55, 66 &, 525 U.S. 55, 66 & n Id.at Pfaff, 525 U.S. at Pfaff, 525 U.S. at 67 (emphasis added). 9 RCA Corp., 887 F.2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1989). 10 See, e.g., Envirotech Corp. v. Westech Engineering Inc., 904 F.2d 1571, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 11 Group One, 254 F.3d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 12 Id. at Id. at Id. at 1047 (emphasis added). 15 Id. at Id. at Id. 18 Id. 19 Id. at 1048 (citations omitted). 20 Id. At Id. In re Kollar, 286 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 22 Id.at Id. at Id. at Scaltech, 269 F.3d 1321, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 26 Id. 27 In re Kollar, 286 F.3d at See Note, "New Guidelines for Applying the "On Sale" Bar to Patentability, 24 Stan. L. Rev. 730, (1972). See also Joy Technologies Inc. v. Flakt Inc., 820 F.Supp. 802, 810 (D. Del. 1993). 29 STX, LLC v. Brine, Inc., 211 F.3d 588, 590, 54 USPQ 2d 1347, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (emphasis added). 9
THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. 53 rd ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 53 rd ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Strategies Regarding Patent Exhaustion After Quanta Timothy C.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAY AND FRANCES SEWARDS, Petitioners-Appellants, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent-Appellee. No. 12-72985 T.C. No. 24080-08
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13210. D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL. versus
Case: 12-13210 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13210 D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
More informationChallenging EEOC Conciliation Charges
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Challenging EEOC Conciliation Charges Law360, New
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/748,316 12/30/2003 Jeffrey Robert Roose 1671-0286 8025
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationThe KSR Standard for Obviousness: A Pendulum Shift to 20/20 Hindsight? Michael O. Warnecke, Partner Perkins Coie
The KSR Standard for Obviousness: A Pendulum Shift to 20/20 Hindsight? Michael O. Warnecke, Partner Perkins Coie KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. April 30, 2007 U.S. Supreme Court s unanimous decision
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF ) TECHNOLOGY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. v. ) 15-10374-FDS ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; ) APPLE, INC.; ELPIDA
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3109 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. 1 Elizabeth S. Jacobs; Geri D. Huser; Nick Wagner, in
More informationTrials@uspto.gov Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 28 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
More informationTrials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Date Entered: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9 571-272-7822 Date Entered: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIVERSAL REMOTE CONTROL, INC. Petitioner v. UNIVERSAL
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Appellant v. GOOGLE, INC., Appellee 2014-1351 Appeal from the United States Patent
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Nos. 09-71415, 10-73715. GABRIEL ALMANZA-ARENAS, Agency No: A078-755-092.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Nos. 0-, -1 GABRIEL ALMANZA-ARENAS, Agency No: A0--0 Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States Attorney General, Respondent. PETITIONER S SUPPLEMENTAL
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 10-4068 CURTIS CORDERY,
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 30, 2011 PUBLISH Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationSupreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
More informationPublic Use Considerations During Mobile App Development
Public Use Considerations During Mobile App Development March 19 th, 2015 Jeff Ranck Garrett Hall John Collins Prior Art Under the AIA Under the AIA, prior art includes anything in a printed publication
More informationThe Federal Circuit Affirms a Court of Federal Claims Decision Dismissing Foreign Tax Credit Refund Claims as Untimely
Tax Controversy Services IRS Insights In this issue: The Federal Circuit Affirms a Court of Federal Claims Decision Dismissing Foreign Tax Credit Refund Claims as Untimely... 1 The Court of Federal Claims
More informationSecond Circuit Holds That the Bankruptcy Code s Debtor Eligibility Requirements Apply in a Foreign Proceeding Under Chapter 15
January 3, 2014 Second Circuit Holds That the Bankruptcy Code s Debtor Eligibility Requirements Apply in a Foreign Proceeding Under Chapter 15 In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In
More informationThe Fate of Anti-Assignment Clauses After Bankruptcy
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Fate of Anti-Assignment Clauses After Bankruptcy
More informationTHIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B. Paper No. 9 EJS UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
06/19/01 THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B. Paper No. 9 EJS UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Consumer Insurance Group, Inc. Serial
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 11-15145. D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-61652-ASG
Case: 11-15145 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 Page: 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-15145 D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cv-61652-ASG [DO NOT PUBLISH] MDS (CANADA) INC., a Canadian
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 13-298 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner, v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, et al., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationA Disclaimed Claim Is Not Always Treated As If It Had Never Existed! What Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
A Disclaimed Claim Is Not Always Treated As If It Had Never Existed! By Charles L. Gholz 1 What Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. Said In Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis
More informationSettlement Traps for the Unwary
Settlement Traps for the Unwary Orange County Bar Association Intellectual Property/Technology Law August 21, 2006 Steve Comer Jae Hong Lee, MD, MPH 2005 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved 3 Cases
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/335,056 01/18/2006 Richard James Casler JR.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationSTATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
STATE STREET BANK & TRUST CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 96-1327 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 149 F.3d 1368 July 23, 1998, Decided
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO In re: RICHARD F. GOOD and MARY K. GOOD, Debtors. Case No. 03-22228 Chapter 7 Judge Arthur I. Harris MEMORANDUM OF OPINION This case is currently
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In re The Biltmore Company a/k/a Biltmore Estate. Serial No.
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
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Filed 9/25/96 PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 95-3409 GERALD T. CECIL, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationFederal Circuit Review
Federal Circuit Review Infringement Volume One Issue Six March 2009 In This Issue: g Direct and Indirect Infringement g Joint Infringement g Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor and Research Tools g Infringing Use
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Argued January 8, 2008 Decided July 23,
More informationFederal Circuit Clears the Way for Large False Patent Marking Fines. by Corina Tanasa January 27, 2010
Federal Circuit Clears the Way for Large False Patent Marking Fines by Corina Tanasa January 27, 2010 PATENT MARKING By statute, each patented product must be marked to collect maximum patent damages.
More informationCase 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DR. MARC L. KOZAM * d/b/a MLK SOFTWARE, et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. CIVIL
More informationIn the Technology-Driven, File Sharing Era, Copyright Protection Remains Alive and Well As a Tool to Combat Active Inducements to Infringe
In the Technology-Driven, File Sharing Era, Copyright Protection Remains Alive and Well As a Tool to Combat Active Inducements to Infringe On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios
More informationAPPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 09/982,337 10/18/2001 Todd Ouzts MFCP.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ALFREDO MEJIA, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D13-2248 ) CITIZENS
More informationMAKING YOUR MARK: HOW TO MAXIMIZE A PATENT DAMAGES PERIOD AND AVOID LIABILITY BY PROPERLY MARKING PATENTED GOODS AND GIVING ACTUAL NOTICE
MAKING YOUR MARK: HOW TO MAXIMIZE A PATENT DAMAGES PERIOD AND AVOID LIABILITY BY PROPERLY MARKING PATENTED GOODS AND GIVING ACTUAL NOTICE Introduction 2004 Michael A. Cicero It is commonly known that a
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1362 James Joyce, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Armstrong Teasdale,
More informationDetermining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases
Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Petitioner, MEMORANDUM *
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 26 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR NASSER, to the Use of Eric A. Dupree, Phillip M. Cohen, and
More informationORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE. BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.'s and
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS... FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA DALLAS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, FEB 2 1 2012 CLERK, U.S. rustr1ct COURT By /n T. Deputy CIV.
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. Appellant No.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case Nos. 06-2262 and 06-2384 NOT PRECEDENTIAL CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., Appellant No. 06-2262 v. REGSCAN, INC. CON-WAY TRANSPORTATION
More informationPATENTS ACT 1977. IN THE MATTER OF Application No. GB 9808661.4 in the name of Pintos Global Services Ltd DECISION. Introduction
PATENTS ACT 1977 IN THE MATTER OF Application No. GB 9808661.4 in the name of Pintos Global Services Ltd DECISION Introduction 1. Patent application number GB 9808661.4 entitled, A system for exchanging
More informationv. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE GIAN BIOLOGICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10-865-LPS BIOMET INC. and BIOMET BIOLOGICS, LLC, Defendants. MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More informationIn re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Issues for AIA Reviews
CLIENT MEMORANDUM In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review February 5, 2015 AUTHORS Michael W. Johnson Tara L. Thieme THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS
More informationWhat s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax
What s News in Tax Analysis That Matters from Washington National Tax Foreign Currency Options Section 1256 Contracts or Not? A federal appellate court treated certain over-the-counter foreign currency
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FORT PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN MASTER LEASE LLC, Defendant-Appellant. 2009-1242 Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before HOLMES, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
ELBERT KIRBY, JR.; CALEB MEADOWS, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT February 5, 2016 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. Plaintiffs - Appellants,
More informationBefore the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Reporting Requirements for U.S. Providers of International Telecommunications Services Amendment of Part 43 of the Commission
More informationCommentary. By Gregory Nylen
Commentary Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service, Association, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007): A Free Pass For Merchant Account Providers For Secondary Liability In Trademark Counterfeiting Cases?
More informationNovember 3, 1999 QUESTION PRESENTED ANSWER GIVEN DISCUSSION
November 3, 1999 No. 8269 This opinion is issued in response to a question from Nancy Ellison, Deputy Commissioner of the Insurance Division of the Department of Consumer and Business Services. QUESTION
More informationVIRGINIA. Insurance Authorization Status
VIRGINIA Page Insurance Authorization Status... 1 Contract Enforceability by Unauthorized Insurers... 1 Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions... 1 Enforceability of Choice of Law Provisions... 2 Enforceability
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte SRINIVAS GUTTA and KAUSHAL KURAPATI
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte SRINIVAS GUTTA and KAUSHAL KURAPATI Appeal 2008-4366 Technology Center 2400 Decided: August 10, 2009
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION Every Penny Counts, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-042 Plaintiff, v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Bank of America Corporation, and Bank of America,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: THOMAS B. O FARRELL McClure & O Farrell, P.C. Westfield, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA ALFRED McCLURE, Appellant-Defendant, vs. No. 86A03-0801-CV-38
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MATTHEW PRICHARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; IBM LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, Defendants-Appellees.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: Chapter 11 MIDWAY GAMES INC, et al. Case No. 09-10465 (KG (Jointly Administered Debtors. THRESHOLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC, Plaintiff,
More informationCase 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353
Case 2:14-cv-00059-JRG-RSP Document 63 Filed 05/08/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 353 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION C-CATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, v. Plaintiff,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-3229 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ANTHONY BAILEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellee. Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationArbitration in Seamen Cases
Arbitration in Seamen Cases Recently, seamen have been facing mandatory arbitration provisions in their employment agreements which deny them their rights to a jury trial under the Jones Act, and also
More informationNOVO NORDISK A/S, Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. and Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Inc, Plaintiffs. v. BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant.
United States District Court, S.D. New York. NOVO NORDISK A/S, Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. and Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals Inc, Plaintiffs. v. BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant. No. 96 Civ.
More informationFunctional Language in Apparatus Claims in US Patent Practice (not invoking 112, 6): Overview and Practice Suggestions
American Intellectual Property Law Association Intellectual Property Practice in Israel Committee Functional Language in Apparatus Claims in US Patent Practice (not invoking 112, 6): Overview and Practice
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-1313 Document: 10 Filed: 09/09/2013 Page: 1 of 12 Edward A. Murphy MURPHY LAW OFFICES, PLLC P.O. Box 2639 Missoula, MT 59806 Phone: (406)728-2671 Email: rusty@murphylawoffices.net Bar No. 201108
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. In the Matter of the Compensation of Randi P. Ayres, Claimant. VIGOR INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Petitioner,
No. 291 August 7, 2013 795 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON In the Matter of the Compensation of Randi P. Ayres, Claimant. VIGOR INDUSTRIAL, LLC, Petitioner, v. Randi P. AYRES, Respondent.
More information2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U. No. 1-14-3589 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 143589-U SIXTH DIVISION September 11, 2015 No. 1-14-3589 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited
More informationMarketing Ingenuity and Invention an Innovation Guidebook
The following is an extraction from Marketing Ingenuity and Invention: an Innovation Guidebook, a publication from the Wisconsin Innovation Service Center. Marketing Ingenuity and Invention an Innovation
More informationThe Appellate Mandate: What It Is and Why It Matters By Jennifer L. Swize
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
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-10459. D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24098-UU. versus
Case: 15-10459 Date Filed: 12/01/2015 Page: 1 of 14 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-10459 D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-24098-UU GABLES INSURANCE RECOVERY, INC.,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
Case: 15-12302 Date Filed: 02/10/2016 Page: 1 of 9 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-12302 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cr-14008-JEM-1
More information2015 IL App (5th) 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 10/15/15. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2015 IL App (5th 140227-U NO. 5-14-0227
More informationAccess to IRS "Working Law": New Tools for the Tax Attorney
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 1982 Access to IRS "Working Law": New Tools for the Tax Attorney John E. Donaldson
More information35 USC 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention August 2015
35 USC 101: Statutory Requirements and Four Categories of Invention August 2015 Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark Office TRAINING OVERVIEW: OVERVIEW The Requirements
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14-3702 MARK WARREN TETZLAFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EDUCATIONAL CREDIT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United
More informationMark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson Sheldon, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs.
United States District Court, D. Maryland. Dr. Marc L. KOZAM d/b/a MLK Software, et al, Plaintiffs. v. PHASE FORWARD INCORPORATED, et al, Defendants. Aug. 29, 2005. Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. DELL INC. and SECUREWORKS, INC., Defendants. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CALVERT BAIL BOND AGENCY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION March 10, 2016 9:00 a.m. v No. 324824 St. Clair Circuit Court COUNTY OF ST. CLAIR, LC No. 13-002205-CZ
More informationShort. Home mortgage lenders have
Short Home mortgage lenders have long enjoyed favorable treatment under the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. 101 1440 (2000). In a delicate balancing act to protect consumers, Congress excepted home mortgages
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In Re Petition of the Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania, to Sell Free and Clear the Property of Estate of Anna S. Rowley, her heirs and assigns
More informationDEFINITION OF A SECURITY
The following excerpt is from Investment Company Determination under the 1940 Act: Exemptions and Exceptions by Robert H. Rosenblum. This excerpt is from Chapter 2, Definition of a Security.. Reprinted
More informationUNITED STATES TAX COURT. LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
T.C. Memo. 2011-100 UNITED STATES TAX COURT LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 13109-08. Filed May 9, 2011. Steven
More information2/26/2014 FRA Unpublished
Sale free and clear of liens U.S.C (f)(), (), and () Clear Channel, 1 BR (th Cir. BAP 0) Clayton Smith and Cristle Smith, Case No. 1-1-tmr //1 FRA Unpublished The Trustee sought authority to sell real
More informationI. UBIT: ROYALTY INCOME AND MAILING LISTS by Edward Gonzalez and Charles Barrett
I. UBIT: ROYALTY INCOME AND MAILING LISTS by Edward Gonzalez and Charles Barrett 1. Introduction Undertakings between exempt organizations and for-profits to sell goods and services, such as magazines,
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte TATSUO NAKAJIMA, ARITO MATSUI, TAKASHI NISHIMOTO, GO ITOHYA, HAJIME ASAI, and TSUNEO TAKANO Appeal
More informationPatent Reissue. Frequently Asked Questions
Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions 1 Table of Contents 1. WHAT IS A REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION?...2 2. WHAT TYPES OF SITUATIONS CALL FOR A REISSUED PATENT?...2
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION In re: ) Case No. 04 B 26948 ) VICTOR AND LINDA WILSON, ) Chapter 13 ) Debtors. ) Judge Pamela S. Hollis MEMORANDUM OPINION
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PROGRESSIVE GULF INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 09-16487 v. D.C. No. RANDALL K. FAEHNRICH, CV-05-1067-BES
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 06-2897 JONATHAN SEGAL, on behalf of himself and derivatively on behalf of nominal parties GEISHA LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
More informationVerizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP and the Scope of Antitrust Protection for Telecommunications
Todd Lindquist Student Fellow, Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD Expected 2005 The controversy in Trinko involved the interplay between the Telecommunications
More informationWHAT TO SAY WHEN YOUR PROOF OF CLAIM IS FILED AFTER THE BAR DATE 1
WHAT TO SAY WHEN YOUR PROOF OF CLAIM IS FILED AFTER THE BAR DATE 1 Bradley R. Hightower United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Alabama Law Clerk to the Honorable Margaret A. Mahoney What
More information2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT
NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 3, 2016 No. 15-11188 In re: AMERICAN LEBANESE SYRIAN ASSOCIATED CHARITIES, INCORPORATED;
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte FANG-JWU LIAO Appeal 2009-002699 Technology Center 2800 Decided: August 7, 2009 Before BEVERLY A.
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN THE TRANSFER OF PATENT RIGHTS
PROTECTING PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS THE U.S. MODEL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE TRANSFER OF PATENT RIGHTS Paolo M. Trevisan Patent Attorney Office of Policy and External Affairs United States Patent and Trademark
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
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,
More informationTHIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
5/29/01 THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE T.T.A.B. Paper No. 9 AD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re CurtCo Freedom Group, L.L.C. Serial
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM 2004 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, 2013
Case 13-2187, Document 139-1, 01/21/2015, 1419728, Page1 of 15 13 2187 In Re: Motors Liquidation Co. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2013 (Argued: March 25, 2014 Question
More informationAttorneys for Plaintiff One Lincoln Center Syracuse, New York 13202 MEMORANDUM-DECISION, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------- IN RE: MICHAEL A. LEMON CASE NO. 99-60083 LYNN M. LEMON Chapter 13 Debtors -----------------------------------------------------------
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D November 19, 2009 No. 09-20049 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk DEALER COMPUTER SERVICES
More information