{"id":8468,"date":"2017-01-03T16:06:57","date_gmt":"2017-01-03T22:06:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=8468"},"modified":"2017-01-03T16:06:57","modified_gmt":"2017-01-03T22:06:57","slug":"oral-argument-of-the-week-macropoint-v-fourkites","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=8468","title":{"rendered":"Oral argument of the week: MACROPOINT v. FOURKITES"},"content":{"rendered":"

The oral argument of the week is\u00a0MACROPOINT, LLC v. FOURKITES, INC.<\/em>, No. 2016-1286 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2016) decided by a Rule 36 judgment. \u00a0The case focuses primarily on \u00a7101 issues.<\/span><\/p>\n

You can listen to the oral argument here [Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n

You can review the Rule 36 judgment [here<\/a>].<\/p>\n


\n<\/span><\/p>\n

Thought for the day:<\/span><\/p>\n

[T]his Court has emphasized that “in a system of laws discretion is rarely without limits.” <\/span>Flight Attendants v. Zipes,<\/em> 491 U.S. 754, 758, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989)<\/a>; see <\/span>Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.,<\/em> ___ U.S. ___, ___, 136 S.Ct. 1923, 1931, ___ L.Ed.2d <\/a>1986<\/a>*1986<\/a> ___, 2016 WL 3221515 (2016)<\/a> <\/span>ante,<\/em> at 8. Without governing standards or principles, such provisions threaten to condone judicial “<\/span>whim<\/span>” or predilection. <\/span>Martin,<\/em> 546 U.S., at 139, 126 S.Ct. 704<\/a>; see also <\/span>ibid.<\/em> (“[A] motion to [a court’s] discretion is a motion, not to its inclination, but to its judgment; and its judgment is to be guided by sound legal principles” (quoting <\/span>United States v. Burr,<\/em> 25 F.Cas. 30, 35<\/a> (No. 14,692d) (C.C.Va.1807) (Marshall, C. J.))). At the least, utterly freewheeling inquiries often deprive litigants of “the basic principle of justice that like cases should be decided alike,” <\/span>Martin,<\/em> 546 U.S., at 139, 126 S.Ct. 704<\/a> . . . .<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.<\/em>, 136 S. Ct. 1979, 1985-86 \u00a0(2016).<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The oral argument of the week is\u00a0MACROPOINT, LLC v. FOURKITES, INC., No. 2016-1286 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2016) decided by a Rule 36 judgment. \u00a0The case focuses primarily on \u00a7101 issues. You can listen to the oral argument here [Listen]. You can review the Rule 36 judgment [here]. Thought for the day: [T]his Court has […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8468"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8468"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8468\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8471,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8468\/revisions\/8471"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}