It was the wrong thread

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Spare us the agony of wondering, Hank. What did you do?

Or was this all just about letting us know that you have big important clients?

It turns out they weren't paying a bill. Settlement check. Hank will be served today on the malpractice action.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Nice work if you can get it.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Look carefully at the lid to your coffee cup or the handle of your disposable razor. A recent ruling on an obscure, century-old statute has opened the door for people familiar with the finer points of patent law to sue companies that stamp their products with expired patent numbers.

A couple of sharp-eyed lawyers are shooting for a financial windfall through the nearly forgotten law, and the Justice Department says they have a case.

The ruling in federal court in Alexandria appears to be the first of its kind upholding the constitutionality of a law allowing anyone to sue in the name of the government if they have evidence that a company is guilty of "false markings" — namely, claiming patent protections that have expired or never existed.

The person who sues gets to keep half of any money awarded, with the rest going to the government. Damages of up to $500 per violation are allowed, which for mass-produced items with "Patent" stamped on every product could theoretically run into billions of dollars.

Despite the financial incentive to sue, lawyers in the Virginia case say no one other than businesses with a financial stake availed themselves of the law.

No one, that is, until Matthew Pequignot.

A Washington patent attorney, Pequignot (PECK'-eh-naw) noticed the patent marks on the lid to his daily cup of coffee, did some research and found that the lid's maker, Solo Cup Co., was continuing to claim patent protections for disposable lids that had expired nearly 20 years ago. Depending on a variety of factors, most patents expire after a set period of time, often after 14 to 20 years.

In 2007, he sued Highland Park, Ill.-based Solo Cup, which makes the red and blue plastic cups seen at parties and barbecues and also supplies disposable cups and lids to retailers like Starbucks and McDonald's. . . .

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Nice work if you can get it.

I want to say I hate this lawyer, but I know I'd do the same thing if I stumbled into the claim.

Which probably explains a lot my self-loathing.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I want to say I hate this lawyer, but I know I'd do the same thing if I stumbled into the claim.

Which probably explains a lot my self-loathing.

I always stay at the Hay Adams when I go to the Fed Cir, but nimble nuts here is on his own dime, so who knows where he'll stay.

• False Marking Case Dismissed
  Posted: 10 Jul 2009 02:31 PM PDT
  Pequignot v. Solo Cup (E.D. Va.)
  
  Judge Brinkema has dismissed Matthew Pequignot’s false marking case against Solo Cup and cancelled the trial previously set to be heard this month. [Order] At oral arguments, the Judge indicated that the ruling is intended to "get [the] case teed up for the Federal Circuit."
  
  In this case, Solo knew that its patents had expired but continued to use the same molds to make its coffee cup lids and other disposable products. During that time - between 20 and 50 billion products were manufactured - each marked as patented. The falseness of the marking was not in serious dispute. Nonetheless, Judge Brinkema ruled that Pequignot did not have any direct evidence to prove that the false marking was done “for the purpose of deceiving the public” as required by the statute. 35 USC 292.
  
  On appeal the Federal Circuit will likely be asked to clarify the level of culpability or intent necessary for a finding of purposeful deception. The choice may follow the same lines of debate as the issue of willful patent infringement. The Federal Circuit recently shifted the law of willfulness to require at least objectively reckless acts of infringement (Seagate) and away from any affirmative duty of caution (Underwater Devices). Professor Winston has argued that intent to deceive should be presumed.
  
  Although the Federal Circuit will probably not be able to reach this issue, the parties hotly dispute the appropriate remedy. The statute calls for a maximum penalty of "not more than $500 for every such offense." Here, the question is whether damages should be calculated based on one offense per product line or one offense per item marked.

[Atticus Grinch]

Before Heller Ehrman imploded, it distributed $9MM in profits but booked them as shareholder loans -- possibly without even telling those shareholders that their draw that year was actually a loan. Oooooooooops.

[Hank Chinaski]

help- a friend is writing a story that starts with this: a lawyer is in alaska to get some papers signed on a Saturday. as written she has the papers being a sales agreement for real estate. the thing is, the story requires that he be back in boston with the papers by monday.

any thing under Mass law that would require an original, because the writer just realized the documents could be scanned and emailed. FWIW, the law could be Ct or NY or Va or anything East Coast.

the only thing I could think of is unreasonable client insisting on seeing the lawyer with originals (maybe crusty old guy that remembers "originals") but any ideas would be appreciated.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

help- a friend is writing a story that starts with this: a lawyer is in alaska to get some papers signed on a Saturday. as written she has the papers being a sales agreement for real estate. the thing is, the story requires that he be back in boston with the papers by monday.

any thing under Mass law that would require an original, because the writer just realized the documents could be scanned and emailed. FWIW, the law could be Ct or NY or Va or anything East Coast.

the only thing I could think of is unreasonable client insisting on seeing the lawyer with originals (maybe crusty old guy that remembers "originals") but any ideas would be appreciated.

If the documents signed constituted a security this could work, but I'm not sure what story line requires that a security physically be somewhere unless there is some kind of security interest involved.

As to real estate law, not my cup of tea.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If the documents signed constituted a security this could work, but I'm not sure what story line requires that a security physically be somewhere unless there is some kind of security interest involved.

As to real estate law, not my cup of tea.

right now it is pissed off buyer saying this must be done, and proof in my hands, by monday-

I thought of throwing out the law aspect and making it a coin collection or something else- the point is just must be there saturday, must be back Monday.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

right now it is pissed off buyer saying this must be done, and proof in my hands, by monday-

I thought of throwing out the law aspect and making it a coin collection or something else- the point is just must be there saturday, must be back Monday.

Could be a deed or a mortgage, or any recorded real estate document. Needs to be an original to be recordable. And that works in any state.

[evenodds]

Today, on this day of national mourning, I always think of all of you.

When the attacks happened, we turned to each other. With phones down in New York, we relayed messaged via infirm to let people know who was safe and who was drinking.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally Posted by evenodds

Today, on this day of national mourning, I always think of all of you.

When the attacks happened, we turned to each other. With phones down in New York, we relayed messaged via infirm to let people know who was safe and who was drinking.

You should post this on the fashion board, where people will see it.

I was just thinking the exact same thing...

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Before Heller Ehrman imploded, it distributed $9MM in profits but booked them as shareholder loans -- possibly without even telling those shareholders that their draw that year was actually a loan. Oooooooooops.

And $35 million in collectibles go poof at Thelen. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...id=48034&tsp=1

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

And $35 million in collectibles go poof at Thelen. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...id=48034&tsp=1

Do you think even 5% of that was genuinely collectible? Or is Citi thinking the Chapter 7 trustee will be able to do the job for less, even after the 5% commission?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Do you think even 5% of that was genuinely collectible? Or is Citi thinking the Chapter 7 trustee will be able to do the job for less, even after the 5% commission?

At this point, you have to think not.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

At this point, you have to think not.

I guess the third possibility (and, now that I think about it a little, the most likely) is that Citi was faced with pursuing collections actions against existing customers and thus facing the prospect of throwing good money after bad *and* losing business in the exchange.

Better to leave a trustee to pursue anything collectible, probably using cheaper lawyers than Citi would, and keep a safe distance from your other customers. That has to be worth the 5%+expenses (or whatever it is in NDCal) that goes to the trustee. Could end up ahead on the net return *and* get to say to your customers being sued "hey, we can't control the trustee".