There is a good possibility that late on Halloween night, the CAFC will receive an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. How does this work:
- Jurisdiction: The CAFC has jurisdiction to immediately hear an appeal to a district court’s denial of injunctive relief under 28 USC 1292 (granting jurisdiction over grants & denials of injunctions) The CAFC has jurisdiction over all cases arising under hte patent laws . 28 USC 1295 This case clearly arises under the patent laws because the complaint asserts that the patent laws preclude the PTO from taking these actions.
- Timing: Normally, a respondent is given at least eight days to respond to a motion in appellate court. FRAP 27. However, the appellate court can shorten that time by giving ‘reasonable notice.’ A temporary order to ‘preserve the status quo’ would not need any notice.
- Emergency Motions:The CAFC has no specific procedure to deal with emergency motions.
- Lone Judge: At the CAFC, most emergency motions involving preliminary injunctive relief are decided by a full three-member panel. However, a single judge will, on occasion, make the determination. In, Tivo v. EchoStar, for instance, Chief Judge Michel issued a temporary stay pending consideration by the full panel. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provide room for a single circuit judge to “act alone on any motion.”
Documents:
-
If someone would e-mail briefs in the GSK/Tafas case, I will post them. (dcrouch@patentlyo.com)
“In your opinion, is the biggest travesty a massive case of double patenting, or something else?”
Something else. In an application family like this, I find it difficult to believe that anything is actually disclosed in a meaningful way to the public that could justify the monopoly granted on the claims in exchange for such disclosure.
Terminal diclaimers, the inevitable massive restriction requirements, etc. don’t really change this underlying picture for me.
“In your opinion, is the biggest travesty a massive case of double patenting, or something else?”
The biggest travesty is that the PTO doesn’t sanction the folks who filed that application. Did you happen to look at the claims? Let’s take for example
6620. A method for determining at least two properties of a specimen, comprising: generating one or more output signals with two or more measurement devices, wherein the one or more output signals are responsive to one or more of the at least two properties of the specimen; and processing the one or more output signals to determine the at least two properties of the specimen.
That’s pure garbage and it’s such pure garbage that there is no way that it could be filed in good faith.
It’s bad faith. Very very very bad faith to file that sort of garbage.
Again: this is where the PTO is coming from. Bless Mr. White and Mr. Quinn for their efforts but their rhetoric is sky-high and when they pretend that this sort of chicanery isn’t going on at an easily detectable level they make themselves out to be fools at best, propagandists at worst.
“Is it your opinion that the primary problems to be addressed are
(1) the waste of PTO resources in examining “bad” claims, and
(2) frivolous patent litigation?”
Yes and no. With respect to (1), the solution is not “best addressed” by merely increasing fees, which amounts to a regressive tax on poorly-heeled inventors. It’s best addressed by better examination that is only possible by placing some reasonable limits on what applicants can file (and promulgating limits in a reasonable manner) and providing Examiners with the tools and time to do the job right.
KSR was a huge and important step in improving the ability of the PTO to get rid of junk.
The only litigation reform that can work is getting rid of judges who can’t do the job or creating specialized courts for patents. I’m not holding my breath, tho I do favor the latter.
agent007 said:
“In case anyone needs an example of the kind of filing that really does need to be eliminated, see US 09/956841, which I had the misfortune of encountering in a search some time ago. This clinically interesting specimen had 6,632 claims as published.
…
The fact that at least one patent has issued from these applications is a travesty.”
In your opinion, is the biggest travesty a massive case of double patenting, or something else?
Malcolm Mooney said:
“The argument is that success is achieved often enough to encourage the behavior and perpetuate the cycle of filings that contribute NOTHING to the public and, in fact, waste the PTOs resources and (by virtue of the threat they represent) raise the costs of commercialization of products across the board.”
Is it your opinion that the primary problems to be addressed are
(1) the waste of PTO resources in examining “bad” claims, and
(2) frivolous patent litigation?
If this is so, aren’t these problems best addressed directly (i.e., through increased fees and litigation reforms, respectively)?
In case anyone needs an example of the kind of filing that really does need to be eliminated, see US 09/956841, which I had the misfortune of encountering in a search some time ago. This clinically interesting specimen had 6,632 claims as published.
Further increasing its entertainment value is the fact that it is one of at least 15 applications, all filed on the same day, all claiming the benefit of the same provisional application, and all having 6,632 claims as published.
Truly a remarkable burst of creativity, to require in excess of 90,000 claims to protect.
In a better world, the PTO would have the discretion to kick nonsense like this to the curb with a curt note reading “Go away and don’t come back until you are prepared to define an invention. P.S. Here’s your filing fee and excess claims fees. No filing date granted”.
However, we do not live in this better world, and I would not trust this PTO management with such discretion.
The fact that at least one patent has issued from these applications is a travesty.
“the argument that applicants are left and right successfully shaping their continuation (not in-part) claims and spec ex post to ensnare competitors without original support is a loser.”
The argument is a tad more subtle. The argument is that success is achieved often enough to encourage the behavior and perpetuate the cycle of filings that contribute NOTHING to the public and, in fact, waste the PTOs resources and (by virtue of the threat they represent) raise the costs of commercialization of products across the board.
“Malcolm, I can’t think of an Office Action I’ve seen in the past 5 years that did not include a 112 rejection.”
Either can I. That’s not the issue, of course. The issue is how often the 112 rejections are forcefully made and how often Examiners are able to see throught the dust and disengenuous garbage thrown at them by attorneys.
In my experience looking at issued patents circa 1995-2005 that are asserted against my clients, the answer to the question is: not nearly often enough.
“Kevin, I think you are being quite unfair to Mark Lemley and (now Judge) Moore. I have no hesitation in saying that accurately predicting each and every feature in the future is basically impossible. But if it so difficult for the patentee to articulate the features of his *own* invention, how much more difficult is it for a competitor looking at the patent specification and the prior art to determine what the scope of the invention is. This loss (to take a concept from 1L torts) exists no matter what, and has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding how patent prosecution works, industry, etc. Continuations basically shift the risk of loss from the patentee ot the competitor.”
If the competitor really thinks they have a product that is patentably distinct from what is disclosed in the patent, why doesn’t the competitor try to obtain a patent on their product and cite the patent as prior art? Filing a patent application is relatively inexpensive compared to a lawsuit and proving that their product was not taught or suggested by the disclosure patent would be likely to discourage a infringement suit on their product.
The big problem these days is that the USPTO has a large backlog of applications thereby delaying examination.
Also, the problem is not that the patentee cannot articulate the patentee’s invention. The problem is that applications are usually and everywhere else, due to first to file, must be filed before the patentee has any idea of which embodiment will be most valuable in the marketplace. Assuming 2-3 years of waiting for an examination, 1-3 years of prosecution, you are asking the applicant to guess the marketplace 3-6 years in the future. I know of no business that can do this on a consistent basis.
Oh, and you are asking the patent applicant to do all of this guessing as they are trying to rush to the patent office with their application, raise money for their business and possibly work out the details of putting a product on the market.
No Problemo
Mark Lemley, professor at Stanford Law School, “widely recognized as a preeminent scholar of intellectual property law,” toots of the new rules for examination limits: “The idea that this would be any sort of significant restriction on patent owners is ludicrous to me. It will affect 10 applications a year, maybe 50, out of 450,000.”
New 37 CFR §1.75(b)(1), known as the 5/25 rule, limits applications to five independent and 25 total claims without an odious examination support document (ESD). An ESD, covered under 37 CFR §1.265, comprises claim charts mapping claims, limitation by limitation, to the most relevant prior art references found; based upon a compulsive prior art search for which inequitable conduct liability is attached. An ESD also includes patentability claims charts: for each independent claim, citing specification support, limitation by limitation. 37 CFR §1.75(b)(4), soon to be known as the 5/25-totality rule, puts all applications in the same family, combined, under the 5/25 rule; where a family is for a set of claims that are “patentably indistinct,” which is normal continuation practice. For all patents in a family, you only get five independent and 25 total claims without submitting detailed claim charts. This is a severe stricture.
One may reasonably observe as understatement that Mr. Lemley’s long suit is not likely to be statistical prediction, probabilistically speaking, of course.
—
Quotation of Mark Lemley from an article by Stuart Weinberg of Dow Jones, provided by Hal Wegner.
(Originally posted by “Patent Hawk” on Thursday, August 23, 2007 at 12:57 PM, on The Patent Prospector)
Of the posts by Crouch, Noonan, etc. concerning the law review article by Professor Lemley and (now) Judge Moore which appeared in volume 84 the Boston University Law Review [BULR; “Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations”], please note
#1. The 2004 law review article in BULR barely touched on RCEs. There is no significant data on RCEs presented in the article.
#2. When data on RCEs later came out, it became apparent that many of the Lemley/Moore conjectures about continuing applications were simply wrong.
#3. There were significant factual errors in the BULR article.
#4. Professor Lemley is not a registered patent attorney. In a later article in the Stanford Law Review on nanotechnology, Professor Lemley credited Gary Boone as being the inventor of the integrated circuit, and did not mention Noyce or Kilby.
#5. In the text in the Federal Register, the USPTO did not even cite the relevant page of the BULR article.
Refer to the April 2006 comment on the proposed rules at
link to uspto.gov
There are three kinds of people who copy inventions disclosed in a pending patent application:
a) those who invent new products that are unrelated to the disclosure;
b) those who find prior art to kill claims (issued or potential) that bother them;
c) those who read issued claims and seek ambiguous phrasing that can be twisted out of context or a non-critical limitation to infringe without infringing.
Unlimited continuations don’t effect “a” (real innovators)and “b” (who fight invalid patents) but are effective weapons against “c” (sophisticated thieves).
Continuations are the only tool an inventor has to fight people who try to steal his or her reward for developing a product and opening up a new market by making cosmetic changes to a copied product. Continuations are exceptionally important because an inventor will take even the narrowest claim offered by an Examiner (to get investment) and continue prosecution to receive the claims that are actually deserved.
Why is it that the USPTO, some examiners and some posters to this blog seem to view inventors as criminals for trying to get a reward for their efforts?
I’m lining up a bit on Kev’s side here. I think all Malcom’s CON-phobia is a bunch of hyperventilating. If Joe Slow wants to wait 5 years after publication before filing his CON, who cares? Joe’s quid is only half a patent for his quo. When patent life ran from issue, the CON blues had some merit.
The solution to the minor problems that now exist is a first to file system with a liberal prior use doctrine. If your spec discloses but does not claim matter and I begin using that matter while you’re sitting on your a$$ trying to decide whether to file a CON, the prior use doctrine should permit me to keep using the matter even after your CON issues. Due to F2F only you have the right to ever claim the matter once you’ve disclosed it in an application, but since the patent life runs from priority date, you’ve only got a stub patent if you don’t claim in the parent. I don’t see a problem.
“I can’t think of an Office Action I’ve seen in the past 5 years that did not include a 112 rejection.”
I suppose it depends on art units, but the vast majority of office actions I see do not include a 112 rejection.
I must not be pushing the envelope enough, because even the 112 rejections I do see are easy to overcome.
For what’s it worth, I think the Chevron doctrine decides the Halloween injunction.
Well, Malcolm, I can’t think of an Office Action I’ve seen in the past 5 years that did not include a 112 rejection. Maybe not hammer, but but not a pillow, either.
“Nothing could be farther from the truth.”
Malcolm, your penchant for hyperbole and high drama often undermines your sometimes worthwhile viewpoints. You’ve surely heard this before, but nobody listens to the homeless weirdo simply because he shouts loudest.
Now, as to the substance of your post – I think a statement that “Examiners never examine new claims for 112 support and allow any claim over 75 words long, regardless of what the specification really teaches” is, actually, further from this truth you speak of. I don’t know what art unit you deal most with (I think it is biotech), but I get over-zealous 112, 1st rejections often when I amend a claim now (even just to get around prior art). Perhaps my art units are exceptionally vigilant or my clients’ disclosures especially theadbare, but I doubt it, considering how many art units I deal with and that I wrote the disclosures (yeah, that’s a bit of facetious arrogance there).
And, even if Examiners aren’t refusing continuation claims that don’t comply with written description or are not enabled, the courts are certainly hyper-vigilant as of late toward 112 deficiencies. ::cough::leibel::cough:: I know we don’t like to get into litigation (or, horribile dictu, licensing) in the first place due to a crap patent, but the argument that applicants are left and right successfully shaping their continuation (not in-part) claims and spec ex post to ensnare competitors without original support is a loser. Pick your battles wisely; stick to the “notice” argument against continuations.
“since any claim must be supported by 112, the idea that the specification is malleable clay (or, more classically, a nose of wax) that can be shaped ex post facto to support a claim that ensnares an innocent third party is weak.”
You make it sound as if 112 were some awesome anti-patent hammer wielded tirelessly and mercilessly by every one of the PTO Examiners against applicants.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
“the choice of what gets prosecuted when is driven by investment pressures, regulatory considerations, etc.”
Really? And the patent bar’s favorite cite — Kingsdown — and its endorsement of late claiming of competitor products ex post was a red herring? Would you endorse a continuation limit that said: “No continuations unless it is in response to investment pressures and FDA considerations, and specifically no continuations to claim post-filing competitor products”? I dare say that 90% of the patent bar would still declare war on a regulation that took away their “right” to claim new competitor products ex post.
Well, in my experience the issue of “late claiming” is a little bit of a red herring. Typically, what happens is that in a patent with several different types of claims (composition of matter claims, method claims, kit claims, etc.) the choice of what gets prosecuted when is driven by investment pressures, regulatory considerations, etc. But since any claim must be supported by 112, the idea that the specification is malleable clay (or, more classically, a nose of wax) that can be shaped ex post facto to support a claim that ensnares an innocent third party is weak. When my clients ask me to opine on a granted patent, I consider not only what has been claimed (and what the prior art precludes from patentability), but what is disclosed but not yet claimed. In the vast majority of cases, I can tell my client whether there is a pending continuation, what claims are pending and what is happening in prosecution (in view of publication and public PAIR). So the idea that a patentee can “hide the ball” is inconsistent with the facts as they now exist. Has it happened in the past? It was probably easier to do, without the information we have had since 2000 for most applications. But I don’t think it wise to fight yesterday’s battles in ways that hurt today’s competitiveness.
And as much as continuation practice may have been abused, Moore and Lemley’s ideas are, in my experience, naive.
Since at least some of the rule changes are clearly improper, then I maintain my position that the drum-head court martial approach I outline would be appropriate, as a way of preventing irreparable harm on 11/1.
The question of which rule changes are within the PTO’s authority (and clearly some are) would take time to resolve. Until this is done, it seems best to block the whole package (including the IDS entertainment).
The statues, as usual, are vague enough to be interpreted either way, so case law (which I am not familiar with) is probably the controlling authority. I tend to think that the PTO is on stronger ground with respect to claims than with respect to continuations. However, setting (effectively) hard limits on claims is still pretty substantive rule making.
I’m sufficiently unhappy with the way the PTO has performed its job on this front that I’ll be the first to admit to more than a bit of knee-jerk opposition to any further moves on their part.
) Are these rule changes substantive as opposed to procedural? — YES
2) Does the PTO have power to set policy via substantive rule making? — NO
Case closed, PTO loses. This should take all of 5 minutes.<<< Do you really think that the PTO lacks authority to enact any of the rules? I'm not so sure with regard to limiting the number of claims. That would seem to be within the statutory authority as a form of claim restriction.
“http://www.kelleydrye.com/news/press/0170
They (by the mouth of John M. Whealan) speak for themselves.”
The Late Eighties just called and wants Whealan to return the lame ponytail.
I really hope the hearing tomorrow goes like this:
1) Are these rule changes substantive as opposed to procedural? — YES
2) Does the PTO have power to set policy via substantive rule making? — NO
Case closed, PTO loses. This should take all of 5 minutes.
In my opinion, reform is needed, but striking the inevitable political compromise between differing interests is exactly what Congress is for. A bunch of clueless ideologues running amok in an Executive Agency is unhelpful, to say the least.
Is there any precedent for an organized campaign by professional IP bar associations to press for the removal of demonstrably incompetent members of PTO upper management? By bringing OED into this pointless fight the PTO is picking with the entire patent bar, I think they’ve fired the first shot, and it is time to get serious about returning fire.
With reference to OED, the following link leads to a presentation apparently given by Harry Moatz to the NAPP annual meeting in 2006.
link to ip-updates.blogspot.com
This presentation goes well beyond the issue of reading all IDS references in their entirety that has been discussed in another thread.
E.g., on slide 20, there is a attempt to generate disciplinary fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) relating to a fact pattern where one or more claims are found unpatentable over a _combination_ of prior art references cited in the specification.
In view of this presentation, the hope expressed in that other thread that people may be mis-interpreting Moatz’s position as being harsher than it actually is would appear to be mistaken.
I’d like to be wrong about this last point, BTW.
The inequitable conduct rule in the reform bill is a simple mess – it attmepts to raise the standard for conduct before the courts but I am still not sure if it succeeds. It also sets up a two tiered system for attorneys who will have to survive the investigation before the Office and then in their state bar – but, hey, it may increase suicides and the Office seems to hate patent attorneys so much they likely think that is a good thing. Do they realize that the courts will not let them defend themselves in court against the inexuitable conduct charge – and under the new law both the defendant and plaintiff have the actual incentive to sell out the lawyer? Ya, the same one who does not have standing to defend himself? Additionally, the threats from the Office over inequitable threats right and left only increase the paranoia – if I didn’t have family I would go bag groceries.
Moore and Lemley are dangerously naive. Neither have ever practiced prep and pros, and Moore is not even a member of the patent bar (is Lemley?). Lemley is just an idealistic smart guy who has no clue what is happening on the ground – kinda like Don Rumsfeld in Iraq. These folks are as out of it as Dudass and Peterlin.
As for RCE practice and continuation practice – RCE practice and CON practice should probably not be unlimited, but when added together with the claim limitation practice, the rule 78 BS, the ESD requirement and all the rest the plan becomes completely unworkable and extraordinarily unfair for to make it retroactive (and it is really disingeuous for the Office to argue these rules are not retroactive).
Sleep well, and pray for a Judge who can see the truth.
Would the proposed “reform” bills in Congress make it easier to file an ESD without worrying about inequitable conduct?
“Continuations basically shift the risk of loss from the patentee ot the competitor.”
Which of those two parties is the inventive entity? Is it really so bad to place the (temporary) “burden” on the copyist?
At any rate, when the patent issues, and actual infringement may lie (not just a reasonable royalty), the claims are set for all, right?
I agree with TJ about continuations and shifting of the burdens. I don’t mind putting the breaks on the practice but I sure the heck do mind these shoddily written rules and the way they were shoved down our throats.
Kevin, I think you are being quite unfair to Mark Lemley and (now Judge) Moore. I have no hesitation in saying that accurately predicting each and every feature in the future is basically impossible. But if it so difficult for the patentee to articulate the features of his *own* invention, how much more difficult is it for a competitor looking at the patent specification and the prior art to determine what the scope of the invention is. This loss (to take a concept from 1L torts) exists no matter what, and has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding how patent prosecution works, industry, etc. Continuations basically shift the risk of loss from the patentee ot the competitor.
Here is what was said in the ESD + inequitable conduct video:
“If you want all your claims examined up front, you can have it done, but it’s going to cost you. You’re going to have to do some work, which in the current law of inequitable conduct, nobody’s going to want to do.”
(said while presenting slide stating “Applicants who want immediate examination of all claims will have to: – Conduct a Search – File Examination Support Document showing patentability of all claims over closest art”)
As to the customer service perspective: due to years of working under pressure of the backlog, we have a Patent Office that hates patents. In the name of “managing” the problem, the PTO will do anything it can to (1) prevent getting new applications, and (2) get rid of existing applications (or shelve them indefinitely, in the case of biz method patents with 16+ years to first OA).
Given the lack of action by Congress to manage the situation (how long did it take to simply stop taking funds from the PTO?), the PTO is probably correct that it will have to resolve the situation on its own. Unfortunately, they have chosen to do so with little regard to public comment. The PTO was hell bent on getting out the continuation rules, paying only minor regard to what the courts will allow them to do (e.g., “we’re only putting conditions, not limits, on continuations”). It sounds like the forthcoming “secret” IDS rules are no better.
Perhaps it is time for the patent bar to advance some ideas for dealing with the patent application side of the equation, rather than focusing solely on litigation and the patent troll problem. Given the delay in dealing with the new rules, AIPLA isn’t looking like the place to get this done.
Latest briefs can be found here:
link to filewrapper.com
Latest briefs can be found here:
link to filewrapper.com
Grunt,
Go here: link to filewrapper.com
Someone please send him the briefs. I am still dying here.
Dennis:
I think you are being too kind to your academic colleagues (present and former). Professors Lemley and Moore certainly advocated that the Office restrict continuation practice, and were the driving intellectual force behind the new rules. I am not imputing nefarious motives to them, but I do question how responsible it was to make some of the statements that were later adopted by the PTO in support of the rules. To my jaundiced practitioner’s eye, some of these statements were hopelessly naive and evinced a complete lack of experience with practice before the office. Ron Katznelson’s work is informative in this regard.
Smallfry –
No kidding – when you get home, you have to listen to the video clips (they are less than a minute), esp. the one regarding ESD’s and the inequitable conduct comment – the way he said it was unbelieveable – please somehow get those videos to a judge!
Thanks! What I want to know is why the patent office has become so antagonistic to patent applicants. I still remember the golden age of 7-8 years ago when we were “customers” and the goal was “customer service”.
also, that he knows applicants will not want to file ESD’s in order to have additional claims examined due to the inequitable conduct issue
In a nutshell, Whealan said the PTO can implement patent policy changes quicker by rule making than Congress can by enacting changes to the patent laws.
Could somebody summarize what Whealan said? I don’t want to play the video in my office at work.
The Schumer letter demonstrates the PTO’s inability to competently carry out rule-making.
Schumer also lists valid concerns regarding high-level concepts of the rules. I have a feeling Schumer is doing right here rather than practicing political scheming.
On further reflection, I wonder if the Schumer letter might be some orchestrated attempt top save the new PTO rules. The PTO suspends implementation of the new rules, claiming that they are doing so at the behest of Senator Schumer (not because of the lawsuit). Then the patent reform legislation is passed giving the PTO much broader rulemaking authority. The PTO then simply reinstates the new rules, asserting that they clearly have the authority pursuant to the patent reform legislation. Now, there would likely be some timing issues with such a course of action (e.g., they didn’t have the requisite authority when the final rules were published). But, they would certainly have a much better chance at surviving judicial review.
And the above scenario makes me wonder if, when they decided to go ahead with implementing the final rules, the PTO was counting on the patent reform legislation being signed into law prior to November 1st.
Although the PTO used Judge Moore and Mark Lemley’s article as academic firepower. This rule change is certainly not a “result” of their article.
This is one point in time where the plaintiff would wish for a former district court judge sitting on the bench.
how interesting that Judge Moore may have to hear arguments about the new rules that were a result of her article bashing RCEs!
Do not misconstrue the Senator’s letter. This case represents the single biggest challenge to regulatory agency law since the 1950s. Those of us who truly understand constitutional law realize that every executive agency violates the separations of powers doctrine, i.e., are unconstitution. However, Congress is lazy and they care not to legislate on every aspect of society. So they turn a blind eye and abdicate their responsibility to the executive branch. Similarly the courts do not want to be responsbile to adjudicate every problem faced by citizens. They too abdicate this responsiblity to the executive branch. The actions taken here, like those of the FDA, are signs that our Constitutional Republic has slid into a imperialistic autocratic state. We, as a people have no voice, except here, in this case, powerful forces have accidently been drawn together to challenge this autocratica and unAmerican act by the USPTO. Schumer merely wants to avoid the embarassment of the setback to ALL regulatory agencies that will occur in light of this lawsuit. Alternatively, this just might be the very lawsuit that puts the nail in the coffin of the Republic of the United States. Only time will tell.
The Wheelan quote seems to contradict the sur-reply of the PTO (filed by Dudas) in the GSK case (the sur-reply to the AIPLA).
johng – it could also spell trouble for the patent reform bill since that bill includes the provision granting greater rulemaking authority to the PTO. Of course Schumer is one of the sponsors of that bill.
metoo, perhaps now Congress will finally be forced to take a closer look at all these freakin issues. Whealan’s in the hot seat!
The folks over at PLI are reporting a very significant development – Senator Schumer has sent a letter to Dudas asking that the PTO consider delaying implementation of the new rules: link to pli.edu
Keep in mind that Schumer is on both the Judiciary (handles PTO and IP matters) and the Finance committees in the Senate.
Judge Newman = her.
If this goes before Judge Michel, I predict he will issue the PI. Michel taught me in law school and I have the utmost respect for his integrity and determination to do what’s right. Notwithstanding the fact that he openly spoke out against continuation practice (because of the “notice” doctrine), I know that he won’t let that prejudice his legal analysis and conclusion that the rules are illegal.
If it goes before Newman, Newman will surely issue the PI (read his dissent in Bogese).
However, let’s all hope this doesn’t get heard by Moore!
Kelley Drye videos here:
link to kelleydrye.com
They (by the mouth of John M. Whealan) speak for themselves.
What has happened to our government? This is worse than I could have imagined.
Comments are closed.