Uncategorized
Billing as part of being “in the zone”
“[C]onsider billing as part of the work, or part of being “in the zone.” I keep my billing program (Tabs) open at all times, and putting in the billing entry is just an automatic five-second task that happens at either the beginning or end of the task I’m working on.
I also use the timer in Tabs, which I think helps keep me focused. Because once I’ve put in “DRAFTING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT” and started the timer, I don’t want to stop what I’m doing until I’ve put at least a fairly productive chunk of time into it. And if for some reason I need to switch to something else, I save the billing entry (which stops the timer), move on to something else, and when I’m ready to go back to the demurrer I can re-open that billing entry and start the timer again.
I’m not saying this would work for everyone, but I do think that contemporaneous billing is probably the best fit for at least the majority of people, if only they can get into the habit of it.” [Emphasis Added]
Holistic Legal Defense
“[C]ompared to similarly positioned defendants with traditional representation, those with
holistic lawyers are less likely to be detained pretrial, no more or less likely to be convicted, less likely to receive custodial sentences, more likely to receive shorter sentences, and no more or less likely to accumulate new arrests — including violent arrests — up through ten years postarraignment.”
What?
“A holistic defender might help clients enroll in drug treatment, access mental health services, maintain employment, preserve housing, or file immigration applications. This approach contrasts with a more traditional indigent defense approach, which emphasizes the role of the defender as a legal and courtroom advocate who has responsibility for obtaining the best outcome for a client in a particular case, subject to ethical and other constraints. Early adopters of the holistic model, such as the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem (NDS) and the Bronx Defenders, implemented a number of innovations in order to better align their day-today operations with the holistic philosophy. First, in order to address nonlegal needs of clients, these organizations require a different mix of staff than a traditional defenders’ office. Holistic organizations tend to hire fewer criminal attorneys as a percentage of total staff and more civil attorneys and other professional personnel, such as social workers or mental health professionals.”
What does holistic vs traditional PD look like for a practitioner?
“A former criminal defense attorney who practiced in the Bronx described Legal Aid as having better institutional memory than the Bronx [Holistic] Defenders…[L]egal Aid had an extensive database of motions, lines of cross-examination, and other templates for a wide range of scenarios. The Bronx [Holistic] Defenders’ written motion- and trial-practice resources did not appear to this interviewee to be as well-developed.” [What if they made these databases public or at least shared with Holistic Defenders?]
“Finally, our findings add to the growing body of work that shows that defense counsel is an important factor
in the outcome of cases. While this conclusion may seem obvious, it is a rebuttal to the notion that the facts of the case rather than the characteristics of the lawyer almost exclusively determine the outcome of the proceeding and provides important information about how outcomes are actually produced in criminal cases.”
Who is the client?
“When a client gives you a “nominal” amount of money, or money that you hold for too short a period of time to earn income in excess of the costs to hold the funds for the benefit of the client, you must hold the money in a common client trust bank account, called an “Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Account” (“IOLTA account”). (See “IOLTA” Accounts.) That account is set up so that your bank pays the interest or dividends the account earns to the State Bar. By law, the State Bar distributes this money to programs that provide legal services in civil matters to indigent people, as defined by statute. Your responsibilities with respect to IOLTA accounts are governed by Business and Professions Code sections 6211-6213. (See Appendix 2 for the text of those sections and for the State Bar IOLTA rules, Title 2, Division 5 of the Rules of the State Bar of California.)”
DIY Prior Art Search
“HOW TO CONDUCT AN EFFECTIVE PRIOR ART SEARCH
Simply put, a prior art search involves checking different databases to find out whether someone else has already described an idea similar to yours.
Here are five steps to follow to ensure your prior art search is comprehensive.
1. BRAINSTORM KEYWORDS TO DESCRIBE THE INVENTION
To conduct a thorough search, you’ll need to account for all possible keyword combinations that could exist in the prior art.
There are various reasons why other patents and applications may use unusual keywords:
- The industry’s commonly accepted terminologies may have changed over time
- Different industries may use different keywords to describe similar concepts
- Many patent filings are translated from other languages to English
2. SEARCH THE PATENT DATABASES
We recommend using the following patent search tools to kickstart your search:
- Google Patents
- USPTO search interface
- Espace (European Patent Office) search interface
- WIPO search interface
- Patent Lens
Many practitioners find that the “classification” system used by the USPTO (that is, the classes and subclasses assigned to each patent) is not particularly useful for prior art searching. As such, we don’t recommend using it as the primary means to guide your search.
Instead, we recommend making a list of the top 10 patent documents for each keyword — and then looking at all the other patent documents that reference, or are referenced by, that patent document. This is sometimes called a “forward and backward” cross-reference search.
To do a “forward and backward” cross-reference search in Google Patents:
- Open the page for the relevant patent that you’ve found.
- Scroll to the bottom.
- Refer to the sections for “Patent Citations” and “Referenced By.”
- Scan the list to see if any of the titles look relevant, or click the links to review them in detail.
To do a similar search on the USPTO search interface:
- View the relevant patent document.
- Scroll down to “References Cited” to look backward at the documents cited in the patent you’ve found.
- Click on “Referenced By” to look forward at patents that cite the patent you’ve found.
You’ll also see a section for “Non-Patent Citations.” While these documents are not always easy to find online, you may be able request a copy from the patent office.
3. EXPAND YOUR SEARCH BEYOND PATENT DATABASES
Prior art isn’t limited to only existing patents or patent applications; it includes all ideas that are publicly available and publicly disclosed. As such, a complete prior art search should extend beyond patent searching.
The following list is not exhaustive, but your prior art search could include:
- A Google Scholar search for scholarly publications
- Non-patent literature like articles, publications, or journals (printed or electronic)
- Amazon or other commercial sites
- The product pages of companies that might be innovating in the same space
4. SAVE ALL RELEVANT RESULTS AND DOCUMENTS
When filing your patent application, you want to cite the most relevant prior art to the USPTO. If the patent examiner has all the most relevant references at their disposal, you’ll end up with a stronger patent.
Additionally, this will ensure you satisfy your ethical duties of disclosure, candor and good faith to report prior art that could affect the patentability of a claim.
So make sure you save a list of all relevant results, as well as complete copies of the documents themselves. (We love a good spreadsheet!)
5. KNOW WHEN TO STOP SEARCHING
Your goal is not to examine all the prior art out there. Rather, it’s to examine enough prior art to gain a comprehensive understanding of where your invention stands in the industry.
Because of the following reasons, it’s literally impossible to know the entire universe of prior art that may be relevant before you file a patent application.
For one, thanks to the 18-month publication window, some patent applications that qualify as prior art may not become public until later on.
For another, there may be relevant prior art that doesn’t show up in a typical search (even after they’re public). Examples include documents that are not indexed on Google, academic theses, and foreign language documents.
So if your search isn’t turning up much prior art, you might be tempted to keep going — but use your experience and common sense to decide when to call it a day.”
Supplemental Interrogatories
“There are two supplemental discovery requests that can be used in California. They are supplemental interrogatories and supplemental requests for production of documents.”
§ 2030.070. Supplemental interrogatory to elicit later acquired information bearing on previous answers; When permitted
(a) In addition to the number of interrogatories permitted by Sections 2030.030 and 2030.040, a party may propound a supplemental interrogatory to elicit any later acquired information bearing on all answers previously made by any party in response to interrogatories.” [Emphasis Added]
See also
§ 2031.050. When supplemental demand may be propounded
(a) In addition to the demands for inspection, copying, testing, or sampling permitted by this chapter, a party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.
“Advantages:
Using the supplemental interrogatories in a timely and efficient matter also avoids your need to serve special interrogatories that could most likely trigger objections if you serve more than 35 and/or are too similar to the initial interrogatories.
If the opposing party responds “all answers remain the same” to the supplemental requests then, at trial, you can file a motion with the court to exclude the introduction of any information that was not previously disclosed in discovery. This is extremely helpful when no information was previously disclosed because the party made garbage objections and claims of privileges.”
Example language (very broad, could be useful):
“1. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070, Defendant is asked to
review all form and special interrogatories previously served on Defendant by Plaintiff, as
well as all responses that were made to those interrogatories, and to amend said responses
based upon any and all later acquired information. If for any reason any answer is no longer
correct and complete, identify the answer and provide whatever information is necessary in
a verified response to make it correct and complete as of this date. If there are no changes,
please provide a verified response to that effect.”
Product Liability…
“[T]o prove a products liability case, you must show that
- The product was defective (usually that involves experts) and maybe more importantly here
- That the product was being used as intended.
Tesla can make several arguments like its auto-pilot system was not intended to be a set and forget system.
The driver is supposed to be aware and able to take control of the vehicle at any time.
The victims will argue that Tesla and its sales staff tout how safe and efficient the system is and tell you with a wink and a nod that you can turn on auto-pilot and take a nap.
We are undoubtedly entering a new era in car accident cases where we will be looking at not only the negligence of drivers but also the reliability of the technology behind the drivers.”
Products Liability (a brief history)
“Products liability law has a history that goes back hundreds or even thousands of years. However, the 1960s, which saw the publication of the Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A (1965) by the American Law Institute can be considered a key decade in laying the groundwork for modern products liability law.”
Thank you for your service…
“C.C.P. §1013 subsections (a) and (c) reference the proper way for a party to serve documents via mail and express mail. In both sections, the Code states that the papers shall be deposited in a post office (and the like) and must include the following: (1) “addressed to the person on whom it is to be served,” (2) “at the office address as last given by that person on any document filed in the cause,” and (3) “served on the party making service by mail.””
Lemon Law
“The evidence in this case does not establish that any information to which Shahian was exposed during his representation of Ford would be material to his representation of Khani in this case. While Ford presented evidence that Shahian represented it in California lemon law cases, it did not establish that any confidential information about the defense in those cases would be at issue in this case. Neither the allegedly defective 2008 Lincoln Navigator nor its repair history by Galpin Motors was the subject of any lawsuit in which Shahian represented Ford. Takahashi’s declaration does not show that Ford had any policies, practices, or procedures generally applicable to the evaluation, settlement or litigation of California lemon law cases at the time Shahian represented Ford, or that any such policies, practices, or procedures continued in existence unchanged between 2007 and 2011. Nor does it show that the same decision makers that were involved in cases Shahian handled for Ford are involved in this case.”
Ruchit Kumar Agrawal 