1/x
9th Circuit ‘Arrives In’ Strange Place
The 9th Circuit LITERALLY allowed an immigration ruling holding "outside the United States" (but nearby) is the legal equivalent of "inside the U.S."!
This is outrageous... & it reminds me of other silliness:nationalreview.com/bench-memos/re…
9th Circuit ‘Arrives In’ Strange Place
The 9th Circuit LITERALLY allowed an immigration ruling holding "outside the United States" (but nearby) is the legal equivalent of "inside the U.S."!
This is outrageous... & it reminds me of other silliness:nationalreview.com/bench-memos/re…
2/x
25 years ago or so, when I did patent litigation, there was a case called Moore v Standard Register (Fed Cir 2000) dealing w/a patent that had a claim requiring an adhesive (ie, glue) to cover a "majority" of the length of a surface. Seems simple. Apparently not...
25 years ago or so, when I did patent litigation, there was a case called Moore v Standard Register (Fed Cir 2000) dealing w/a patent that had a claim requiring an adhesive (ie, glue) to cover a "majority" of the length of a surface. Seems simple. Apparently not...
3/x
My firm at the time defended the radical position that "majority" meant over 50%.
Here's a telling quote: "“...In this case, we hold that the applicant's use of the term "majority" is not entitled to a scope of equivalents covering a minority for at least two reasons. ...
My firm at the time defended the radical position that "majority" meant over 50%.
Here's a telling quote: "“...In this case, we hold that the applicant's use of the term "majority" is not entitled to a scope of equivalents covering a minority for at least two reasons. ...
4/x
... First, to allow what is undisputedly a minority (i.e., 47.8%) to be equivalent to a majority would vitiate the requirement that the "first and second longitudinal strips of adhesive . . . extend the majority of the lengths of said longitudinal marginal portions." [cite]
... First, to allow what is undisputedly a minority (i.e., 47.8%) to be equivalent to a majority would vitiate the requirement that the "first and second longitudinal strips of adhesive . . . extend the majority of the lengths of said longitudinal marginal portions." [cite]
5/6
Second, it would defy logic to conclude that a minority- the very antithesis of a majority- could be insubstantially different from a claim limitation requiring a majority, and no reasonable juror could find otherwise....”
Second, it would defy logic to conclude that a minority- the very antithesis of a majority- could be insubstantially different from a claim limitation requiring a majority, and no reasonable juror could find otherwise....”
6/6
For anyone who cares, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (the appellate court that hears patent appeals) got it right, ruling that a "majority" means more than 50%... maybe we should transfer all immigration appeals to the federal circuit? :)
For anyone who cares, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (the appellate court that hears patent appeals) got it right, ruling that a "majority" means more than 50%... maybe we should transfer all immigration appeals to the federal circuit? :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
