|
NJ Deac posted:I receive a train wreck of a final rejection. In response, I submit an after-final response arguing each of the independent claims along with separate arguments for 8 different dependent claims. next time call their SPE or the director to complain too
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Today I had the misfortune of talking to a corporate lawyer and he was going on about how great technology and a networked paperless office are, because it lets him do work while on vacation before his wife wakes up or after she's asleep. I gazed into the face of a true sociopath, and it wasn't the murderer I met minutes after.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I don't get what's unreasonable about that - if the dependent claims rely on the independent claims, and the independent claims are rejected, why would you consider the arguments about the dependent claims? As WJ noted, dependent claims can contain allowable subject matter even if the claims from which they depend do not. Example: quote:Independent Claim - An apparatus comprising A, B, and C. In order to reject the independent claim, the examiner has to find A, B, and C. In order to reject the dependent claim, he has to find A, B, C, and D. My arguments were: Hey, you don't have C., and even if you did have C, you sure as poo poo don't have D, E, F, G, H, I, J, or K as recited in my dependent claims. His response: I disagree - I have A, B, and C, therefore, suck my dick. I then requested a review by two other examiners in the art unit (pre-appeal conference). The response was essentially "Well, we're not allowing anything in our art unit anyway due to Alice, so we agree that you should suck his dick. Take it to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and spend thousands of your clients dollars along with a 3 year delay if you disagree". Best part? I currently have over a half dozen cases with this examiner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
That makes sense, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:As WJ noted, dependent claims can contain allowable subject matter even if the claims from which they depend do not. they do have another review when you actually file the brief, which is why they moved the big fee from filing the brief to heading to the board, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:they do have another review when you actually file the brief, which is why they moved the big fee from filing the brief to heading to the board, right? Correct - he now prepares an answer to my brief. If his answer doesn't pass the laugh test before his SPE/whoever else they get to review (likely the same ones who signed off on the pre-appeal), then they might make him reopen prosecution to fix the deficient rejections and issue a new office action (probably just as bad as the last one). That potentially saves my client the $2,000 appeal forwarding fee on this go-round, but that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
NJ Deac posted:Correct - he now prepares an answer to my brief. If his answer doesn't pass the laugh test before his SPE/whoever else they get to review (likely the same ones who signed off on the pre-appeal), then they might make him reopen prosecution to fix the deficient rejections and issue a new office action (probably just as bad as the last one). That potentially saves my client the $2,000 appeal forwarding fee on this go-round, but that's about it. should be non-final, at least
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Not this poo poo again e. I'm only kidding
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
All I hear is the teacher from Peanuts. (but then again, I'm forced to wear pants)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Today I had the misfortune of talking to a corporate lawyer and he was going on about how great technology and a networked paperless office are, because it lets him do work while on vacation before his wife wakes up or after she's asleep. Cannot tell you how many times I've had colleagues tell me similar stories, unironically and with giddy happiness. I remember one guy in particular explaining how he managed to handle all of the paper work for a major M&A deal while in California for his daughter's wedding. He was incredibly excited that he could sit in the hotel room and send emails and take calls all day, yet still fulfill all of his daughter's wishes for a happy life by showing up for the minimum 27 minutes actually demanded by the wedding ceremony itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
One could say on balance, it possible to stay in balance: https://youtu.be/XgSJUzYCGtc
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Omerta posted:One could say on balance, it possible to stay in balance: https://youtu.be/XgSJUzYCGtc These people are masochistic sociopaths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Omerta posted:One could say on balance, it possible to stay in balance: https://youtu.be/XgSJUzYCGtc How did they let this get released holy poo poo. "I get to eat dinner with my family! That's balanced to me!" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
Omerta posted:One could say on balance, it possible to stay in balance: https://youtu.be/XgSJUzYCGtc Lol holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol holy poo poo Ha. I know that first dude. I mean... If you're looking at Kirkland you already know you're going to work 16 hours a day, so I guess they might as well sell that you can do the work at home? (First guy? Not at Kirkland anymore.) Kalman fucked around with this message at 05:35 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Cannot tell you how many times I've had colleagues tell me similar stories, unironically and with giddy happiness. I remember one guy in particular explaining how he managed to handle all of the paper work for a major M&A deal while in California for his daughter's wedding. He was incredibly excited that he could sit in the hotel room and send emails and take calls all day, yet still fulfill all of his daughter's wishes for a happy life by showing up for the minimum 27 minutes actually demanded by the wedding ceremony itself. They're rolling out all this flexible working with iPads and whatnot at my office too. I say thanks for the shiny devices and still refuse to answer my phone or look at my emails after hours unless I'm doing a trial or something. Family and a social life are way more important, but I guess that's why I'm not a corporate lawyer. All the gadgets are useful when in court or travelling for work though or for working from home during the day if you have to for whatever reason. My boss, on the other hand, likes answering emails at 11pm at night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
I have a natural lull at the end of the day, during which I feel the crushing, inexorable dread of falling behind my colleagues on the mouse wheel...thank god I can fill that hole in my heart with busy work once those other people in my house finally get out of my hair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
To be fair, K&E is notorious even among biglaw for working its associates to death. But a disturbing number of graduates from my school are heading to NY/Chicago biglaw and know that's roughly what they're getting into.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Today I had the misfortune of talking to a corporate lawyer and he was going on about how great technology and a networked paperless office are, because it lets him do work while on vacation before his wife wakes up or after she's asleep.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Ani posted:I'm a corporate lawyer (i.e., true sociopath) and I don't really get why this is terrible? Sending emails for a couple hours a day on vacation seems a lot better than skipping the vacation altogether. You don't have to get excited about it though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
I'm in front of a judge who won't let me dismiss my case voluntarily without prejudice (no other issues exist ) and she has to review the file for some unspecified purpose???
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Uh, Non-suit is effective the moment its filed, w/o prejudice, whether the judge signs the order or not, here in my Great State.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
I appreciate the ability to respond to very minor requests while I'm on vacation because then other people will do the same (like, stuff you can answer off the cuff in 30s but would take someone else a while to figure out, like "which one of these spreadsheets has the right numbers again?") but short of a genuine emergency gently caress working on vacation. If your case is well-run enough and you gave some notice of your vacation people should be able to work around it and my firm is actually pretty good about doing that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Uh, Non-suit is effective the moment its filed, w/o prejudice, whether the judge signs the order or not, here in my Great State. She keeps saying it's unfair that we could bring the defendant back into court and I'm like uh can't we do that in a new case too what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:She keeps saying it's unfair that we could bring the defendant back into court and I'm like uh can't we do that in a new case too what the gently caress That seems reasonable to me, actually. Since if there's an adverse decision on you in a case it will be binding on any future cases, it's reasonable for a judge to review an attempt to dismiss the case without prejudice to ensure there's no gamesmanship. It's only dismissing it with prejudice that should require no review by the judge. edit: This is especially true when it's a sophisticated party bringing the suit against an unsophisticated party, which is what your practice pretty much falls into. By putting it on the sophisticated party to get it right the first time, you can cut down on monkey business.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
It's the absolute right of pltf to dismiss without prejudice. Def actually had counsel who acknowledged his counterclaim had been dismissed with prej and no issues remained. Of course I lost and she "exercised her discretion" to do it with prej. It's reversible error but hey that's why we make sure to not have any audio recordings of the judges here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Ani posted:I'm a corporate lawyer (i.e., true sociopath) and I don't really get why this is terrible? Sending emails for a couple hours a day on vacation seems a lot better than skipping the vacation altogether. I agree. Being burned with cigarettes is much better than a pipe wrench to the face and a broken orbital. Some call him a child abuser, but I say Dad was really looking out for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
No court reporter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:No court reporter? Ha. Bring one of those, the judge will look at them and shockingly decide to issue a ruling in writing. And those rulings take months if not years to get
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's the absolute right of pltf to dismiss without prejudice. Def actually had counsel who acknowledged his counterclaim had been dismissed with prej and no issues remained. Counter-point: You are the plaintiff, you filed the case, it wasn't a surprise to you, either try the drat thing or leave the Defendant alone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:It's the absolute right of pltf to dismiss without prejudice. Def actually had counsel who acknowledged his counterclaim had been dismissed with prej and no issues remained. if it's the absolute right of a plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice that is a dumb rule, and it seems entirely reasonable to me that you have an absolute right to dismiss the case but the judge is entirely free to say gently caress you, it's dismissed with prejudice because what you're saying would be such a dumb rule I seriously doubt it's the actual rule and this really sounds like a completely reasonable ruling and the only case it would not be a reasonable ruling is if the underlying rule is dumb as hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:because what you're saying would be such a dumb rule I seriously doubt it's the actual rule and this really sounds like a completely reasonable ruling and the only case it would not be a reasonable ruling is if the underlying rule is dumb as hell In Texas a non-suit is automatic and immediate and the signing of an Order of Non-Suit is "ministerial" in nature. \/\/\/\/\/ In Texas a non-suit cannot be denied. Creditors file thousands of lawsuits, default the pro se who don't answer and then non-suit the case 30 seconds prior to trial if the other side has an attorney. Repeat until debtor can't afford attorney. Roger_Mudd fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
The Court certainly has the right to deny a dismissal without prejudice if the defendant objects but I don't see where they get the discretion to dismiss a case with prejudice based on a plaintiff's request to do what is fundamentally the exact opposite. Roger_Mudd posted:Counter-point: You are the plaintiff, you filed the case, it wasn't a surprise to you, either try the drat thing or leave the Defendant alone. Simply denying a motion to dismiss with prejudice puts the plaintiff in exactly this position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Edit: beaten.Roger_Mudd posted:In Texas a non-suit is automatic and immediate and the signing of an Order of Non-Suit is "ministerial" in nature.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:In Texas a non-suit is automatic and immediate and the signing of an Order of Non-Suit is "ministerial" in nature. Sounds like a rule that's dumb as hell!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Counter-point: You are the plaintiff, you filed the case, it wasn't a surprise to you, either try the drat thing or leave the Defendant alone. I actually wonder what the judge would've done if i said fine, dismissed the defendant that moved out, then went to jury trial against unknown occupants. Judge probably would've just transferred it to another courtroom so as to avoid dealing with it. Once again, jury trials are idiotic to allow for these types of civil cases. The better part about the 'rule being dumb' is as follows: if someone is squatting in your property, every day is a new cause of action. So any dismissal with prejudice has no res judicata effect and is completely pointless!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:In Texas a non-suit is automatic and immediate and the signing of an Order of Non-Suit is "ministerial" in nature. I'm sure there's a German word for those moments when you realize the civil system is just as broken as the criminal one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Meander posted:Having just read through the OP, I am very glad to have become a lawyer in New Zealand rather than the US. We have only a handful of law schools, most of which are ok, and while the first job is still difficult to get it's not quite the soul-crushing pit of despair that the OP demonstrates for the US. Plus our "bar exam" is a course that can be done online, with a few short exams. Hello fellow enrolled barrister and solicitor of the HC of NZ- and congratulations on gaining a New Zealand practising certificate ;D. We probably know lots of people 1 or 2 connections away. I am now in the USA and at the beginning end of a long trudge of getting my NZ credentials recognised to allow me to file for the bar exam in Georgia. Will be lots of study and aggro but well I am trying my best not go back to law school again. Ill let you/ this thread know how that goes in a few months, also if I am still alive Jacobin fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jan 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
In other news I love how it's acceptable in court for the hot female attorneys to wear yoga pants with a sweater or jacket that doesn't cover their behind. I'm a pervert
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:09 |
|
|
Jacobin posted:Hello fellow enrolled barrister and solicitor of the HC of NZ- and congratulations on gaining a New Zealand practising certificate ;D. We probably know lots of people 1 or 2 connections away. Thanks, have been practicing for several years now though, only just discovered this thread. All the best for Georgia, would be interested in hearing about how it goes. Re: court dress - there is a rumour going around my area of practice that one lawyer once wore leather pants in the District Court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2016 21:44
|
|