717 Madison Place

I finally got a frame for my “IP Man” movie poster.  Food for thought if you are looking for that unique gift for the discerning IP professional.

I believe that in this particular shot, IP Man is shown wielding the “Staff of Beauregard” just in case he should encounter the Cybersource panel and have to engage them in a battle of wits.  (A peculiar feature of the “Staff of Beauregard” is that although it appears to be a physical article of manufacture, to some it is just an abstract idea.)

Here’s a better look at the IP Man movie poster: [Link].

Yes, that Hans Gruber. 

A panel of the Federal Circuit was trying to evaluate the construction of the term “bearer instrument” in a recent oral argument.  Counsel for the defendant-appellee was explaining that, with respect to bearer instruments, title passes by delivery  without endorsement.  As an illustration, he used the example of Hans Gruber trying to steal bearer bonds in the movie Die Hard.  [Listen].  While the analogy resonated with me, I couldn’t tell from the recording if it did with the panel.   As it turns out, Hans Gruber is a very well-known character.  He is the 46th most notorious villain in the last 100 years of the movies, according to the American Film Institute.

You can listen to the entire oral argument in Privacash, Inc. v. American Express Co. et al. [here].

You can read the court’s opinion [here].

An advocate appearing before the court last summer must have been looking a little bit peaked during oral argument.  Judge Bryson inquired if he could ask a question before counsel expired:  [Listen].

The 717 Madison Place blog is celebrating its two-year anniversary today.  Thanks for tuning in!  Looking back over the last two years, I think my favorite sound bite comes from the very first post.  If you haven’t listened to that one, here it is again: ["This is a brother-in-law case, your Honor"].  That sound bite comes from Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies.

Did you know the Federal Circuit sat en banc last week?  Indeed it did without much fanfare from the patent community.  The court sat en banc in two appeals from the Court of Federal Claims dealing with partnership/tax issues.  The appeals were tangentially related to the movies ”Lone Wolf McQuade,”  “Terminator,”  “Return of the Living Dead,” and “Howling II” [Listen]. 

You can listen to the entire en banc oral argument here: [Listen].

Demonstrating gloves can be tricky business during oral argument.  In response to a question from Judge Moore, one appellant was recently demonstrating how language describing the “proximal A2 pulley region” of a finger should be construed.  Before he started, she warned him off from using his middle finger to demonstrate.  [Listen].

In case you’re curious how the case turned out, you can read the court’s opinion here: [Read].

     One of the issues that came up in the oral argument of the recently decided case of iLOR v. Google, 2010-1117 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2011) was whether the district court was in error in awarding expert fees to Google.  To award such fees is beyond 35 U.S.C. §285 alone and requires invoking the inherent powers of the court.  However, the standard to be applied by the court to invoke such inherent powers is whether “fraud has been practiced upon it, or that the very temple of justice has been defiled.”   So, during the oral argument, Chief Judge Rader inquired whether the temple of justice had been defiled: [Listen].

Judge Lourie was calling the case of Auction Management Solutions v. Manheim Auctions, a patent case related to internet auctioning, when he asked counsel for the appellant if he was buying or selling.  Counsel for the appellant (Don Dunner) quickly remarked “Your Honor, I’m hoping you’re buying.” [Listen].

The Rule 36 Opinion is available here: [Read].

In the oral argument of Eli Lilly v. Teva, 2010-1005 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2010), Chief Judge Rader noted a “supreme irony” that Lilly was the target of a written description defense shortly after Lilly relied on a written description defense in Ariad v. Eli Lilly: [Listen].

You can read the opinion here: [Read].

You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen].