This presentation discusses recent Supreme Court cases that have impacted standards for enhanced damages and attorney fee awards in patent cases. It summarizes the holdings in Octane Fitness v. ICON Health, which lowered the standard for exceptional cases warranting attorney fee awards, and the pending cases of Stryker v. Zimmer and Halo v. Pulse, which may lower the standard for proving willful infringement and awarding enhanced damages. The presentation analyzes factors courts consider for these types of awards and provides examples of post-Octane Fitness fee award amounts.
The Annual Insurance Event took place at the Old Library, Lloyd's, on Wednesday 3 December 2014.
At the event we reviewed the Jackson reforms and their impact in the 18 months since their implementation, the Insurance Bill and market developments. Our own speakers were joined by key industry figures to discuss these matters and to look forward to the further changes to come and predict what may happen following the general election.
Topics include:
• the squeeze on fees - how are budgeting and fixed costs changing the market?
• trends in liability claims - new procedures, portal and whiplash reforms
• case management post Denton – do we have certainty?
• adaptation in the claims market - what are the firms and insurers doing?
• the impact on end users - policyholders' experience
• the Insurance Bill - road to implementation
• ‘duty of fair presentation' – what will this mean for insurers, brokers and insureds?
• abolition of basis of contract clauses – are insurers ready?
• remedies for breach of warranty – a fair balance or an inappropriate downgrading?
We used the event as an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come since the Jackson reforms have been introduced, and to assess whether the reforms have been a success or not.
We looked into our crystal ball and made predictions as to whether the Insurance Bill will work in practice. With our guests examined what it takes to thrive in the environment which is being fashioned by such fast moving reforms in the litigation and the insurance world.
This version updates the discussion of Inter Partes Review (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), improves some slides for clarity, and fixes some nits and typos.
The patent environment is constantly changing because of new laws, regulations, and court decisions. This updated presentation explains why most US patents are not worth much. The presentation takes into account recent changes while clarifying some of the major challenges in creating a valuable patent portfolio. The presentation goes on to outline the best practices that will often, but not always, overcome many potential roadblocks and impediments to creating patent value. This presentation is directed towards startups, inventors, investors, innovators, and C-level executives.
After explaining the difficulties of building a strong patent portfolio, Best Practices are discussed in some detail:
Some Assumptions Underlying Best Practices
How To Build Patent Value
Searching Matters Because
Keep the File Open at the Patent Office With A Continuation
Avoid Prior Disclosure – The On-sale Bar
File A Provisional Patent Application
Consider Foreign Filings
Work With A Registered Patent Attorney
Disclaimer: The content of this presentation shall not be construed under any circumstances, by implication or otherwise, as the giving of legal advice and/or the practice of law.
Court's duty to ascertain jurisdictionCameron Ford
The court has a duty to ascertain its own jurisdiction, even if the parties do not raise any objections. According to past cases, the court's "first duty" is to determine if it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. This duty exists whether or not a party challenges jurisdiction - the court must still consider the question. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by party consent alone. The court is responsible for being satisfied that the conditions for its jurisdiction have been met.
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement - Workman NydeggerWorkman Nydegger
Enhanced damages in patent infringement suits in recent years have been limited due to the application of the Seagate test. This test was developed as a standard used by courts to determine when to award enhanced damages. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Halo v. Pulse found the Seagate test to be unduly rigid and inconsistent with the actual statute regarding enhanced damages. The Court restored the process of awarding enhanced damages to its intended scope.
We review the history of enhanced damages in patent infringement suits, including the introduction of the Seagate test. Halo v. Pulse is reviewed and the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind eliminating the Seagate test is described. We also discuss the impact the removal of the Seagate test has on patent infringement suits and potential patent infringers.
http://www.wnlaw.com/blog/enhanced-damages-patent-infringement-halo-v-pulse/
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25)Patexia Inc.
Mr Schecter's webinar will focus on the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the Alice case and potential paths going forward. Mr. Schecter will begin with an examination of how the lower courts and the USPTO have reacted to the Alice decision, and then consider the possibility of additional Supreme Court jurisprudence or legislation.
Federal Circuit will review en banc two recent panel decision relating to joint infringement of method claims — Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent InfringementTim Hsieh
This document discusses actions in-house counsel can take post-Seagate to avoid findings of willful patent infringement. It recommends:
1) Continuing to implement design-around strategies and obtaining opinions of counsel, though an opinion is not always required.
2) Ensuring opinions of counsel are timely obtained, provided to decision-makers, and relied upon before production begins.
3) Making sure all relevant information is provided to opinion counsel.
4) Reviewing opinions for quality and protecting counsel's independence.
5) Educating employees and establishing communication lines to detect potential issues.
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent ReviewKlemchuk LLP
Brief overview of post-AIA patent review procedures, overview of post-AIA stays of litigation pending patent review, and the analysis of district court orders on motions to stay pending patent review
The Annual Insurance Event took place at the Old Library, Lloyd's, on Wednesday 3 December 2014.
At the event we reviewed the Jackson reforms and their impact in the 18 months since their implementation, the Insurance Bill and market developments. Our own speakers were joined by key industry figures to discuss these matters and to look forward to the further changes to come and predict what may happen following the general election.
Topics include:
• the squeeze on fees - how are budgeting and fixed costs changing the market?
• trends in liability claims - new procedures, portal and whiplash reforms
• case management post Denton – do we have certainty?
• adaptation in the claims market - what are the firms and insurers doing?
• the impact on end users - policyholders' experience
• the Insurance Bill - road to implementation
• ‘duty of fair presentation' – what will this mean for insurers, brokers and insureds?
• abolition of basis of contract clauses – are insurers ready?
• remedies for breach of warranty – a fair balance or an inappropriate downgrading?
We used the event as an opportunity to reflect on how far we have come since the Jackson reforms have been introduced, and to assess whether the reforms have been a success or not.
We looked into our crystal ball and made predictions as to whether the Insurance Bill will work in practice. With our guests examined what it takes to thrive in the environment which is being fashioned by such fast moving reforms in the litigation and the insurance world.
This version updates the discussion of Inter Partes Review (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), improves some slides for clarity, and fixes some nits and typos.
The patent environment is constantly changing because of new laws, regulations, and court decisions. This updated presentation explains why most US patents are not worth much. The presentation takes into account recent changes while clarifying some of the major challenges in creating a valuable patent portfolio. The presentation goes on to outline the best practices that will often, but not always, overcome many potential roadblocks and impediments to creating patent value. This presentation is directed towards startups, inventors, investors, innovators, and C-level executives.
After explaining the difficulties of building a strong patent portfolio, Best Practices are discussed in some detail:
Some Assumptions Underlying Best Practices
How To Build Patent Value
Searching Matters Because
Keep the File Open at the Patent Office With A Continuation
Avoid Prior Disclosure – The On-sale Bar
File A Provisional Patent Application
Consider Foreign Filings
Work With A Registered Patent Attorney
Disclaimer: The content of this presentation shall not be construed under any circumstances, by implication or otherwise, as the giving of legal advice and/or the practice of law.
Court's duty to ascertain jurisdictionCameron Ford
The court has a duty to ascertain its own jurisdiction, even if the parties do not raise any objections. According to past cases, the court's "first duty" is to determine if it has jurisdiction over the matter before it. This duty exists whether or not a party challenges jurisdiction - the court must still consider the question. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by party consent alone. The court is responsible for being satisfied that the conditions for its jurisdiction have been met.
Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement - Workman NydeggerWorkman Nydegger
Enhanced damages in patent infringement suits in recent years have been limited due to the application of the Seagate test. This test was developed as a standard used by courts to determine when to award enhanced damages. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Halo v. Pulse found the Seagate test to be unduly rigid and inconsistent with the actual statute regarding enhanced damages. The Court restored the process of awarding enhanced damages to its intended scope.
We review the history of enhanced damages in patent infringement suits, including the introduction of the Seagate test. Halo v. Pulse is reviewed and the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind eliminating the Seagate test is described. We also discuss the impact the removal of the Seagate test has on patent infringement suits and potential patent infringers.
http://www.wnlaw.com/blog/enhanced-damages-patent-infringement-halo-v-pulse/
Getting past alice schecter patexia (2016-02-25)Patexia Inc.
Mr Schecter's webinar will focus on the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision in the Alice case and potential paths going forward. Mr. Schecter will begin with an examination of how the lower courts and the USPTO have reacted to the Alice decision, and then consider the possibility of additional Supreme Court jurisprudence or legislation.
Federal Circuit will review en banc two recent panel decision relating to joint infringement of method claims — Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 629 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
In-House Counsel's Role in Avoiding Willful Patent InfringementTim Hsieh
This document discusses actions in-house counsel can take post-Seagate to avoid findings of willful patent infringement. It recommends:
1) Continuing to implement design-around strategies and obtaining opinions of counsel, though an opinion is not always required.
2) Ensuring opinions of counsel are timely obtained, provided to decision-makers, and relied upon before production begins.
3) Making sure all relevant information is provided to opinion counsel.
4) Reviewing opinions for quality and protecting counsel's independence.
5) Educating employees and establishing communication lines to detect potential issues.
Stays of Litigation Pending Post-AIA Patent ReviewKlemchuk LLP
Brief overview of post-AIA patent review procedures, overview of post-AIA stays of litigation pending patent review, and the analysis of district court orders on motions to stay pending patent review
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesPatton Boggs LLP
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that deal with awarding attorneys' fees in patent cases. In the first case, Octane Fitness v. ICON Health, the Court will consider whether to lower the standard for determining an "exceptional case" in which fees can be awarded. In the second case, Highmark v. Allcare Health, the Court will determine how much deference appellate courts must give to lower court decisions on awarding fees. These rulings could make it easier for prevailing parties to recoup fees and deter patent holders from filing weak infringement claims.
Managing IP In Light of Changing US Patent LawIanliu
This document discusses strategic intellectual property management and how U.S. patent law is changing. It provides an overview of strategic IP management, including creating, maximizing, and realizing IP value. It then summarizes how recent Supreme Court cases and proposed patent law reforms have impacted licensing and litigation strategies. When asked about a competitor's new product, the document advises reviewing existing patents for potential licensing or litigation in light of evolving legal standards regarding obviousness and injunctions.
Patent Reform 2015 - Andrew Baluch presentation to Rutgers UniversityDipanjan "DJ" Nag
This document discusses various efforts at patent reform in 2015 at both the federal and state levels. At the federal level, the executive branch proposed reforms and Congress considered bills like the Innovation Act. These addressed issues like fee shifting, real party in interest disclosure, and staying customer suits. Meanwhile, states passed laws regulating abusive patent demand letters. Courts also addressed several patent reform issues through decisions that intersected with proposed legislation. Overall, the document analyzes the complex interplay between different government entities on the multi-faceted topic of patent reform.
1) Reasonable royalty calculations are important in patent infringement cases, as they represent the minimum damages a patent holder is entitled to and are the most common form of damages sought, particularly by non-practicing entities.
2) There are two main approaches to calculating reasonable royalties - the analytical approach based on infringer's profits, and the hypothetical negotiation approach which aims to determine the royalty the patent holder and infringer would have agreed to.
3) The Georgia-Pacific factors provide a legal framework for assessing reasonable royalties, considering factors relevant to a hypothetical negotiation between willing parties such as existing royalty agreements, industry standards, and the merits of the invention.
The document summarizes highlights from the second year of post-issuance proceedings administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It discusses several notable cases from 2014 related to inter partes review, covered business method review, and post-grant review. Specifically, it discusses how the Federal Circuit addressed the appealability of PTAB decisions on petitions and clarified that only final written decisions can be appealed. It also summarizes trends in petitions filed and issues considered in the second year of these new proceedings introduced by the America Invents Act.
This document summarizes several recent and upcoming Supreme Court cases related to intellectual property law. It discusses key holdings and issues in cases like Cuozzo v. Lee regarding the appealability of Patent Office decisions, Halo v. Pulse regarding standards for enhanced patent damages, and Samsung v. Apple regarding the scope of design patent damages. It also previews several patent cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear in its upcoming 2016 term.
Gober Rivette_published in Intellectual Asset Magazine Issue 75_December 2015Mark Gober
The patent enforcement environment has significantly changed since 2010-2011, making it more difficult for public IP companies (PIPCOs) to enforce their patents. Key developments include the America Invents Act which established new post-grant proceedings allowing third parties to challenge patent validity, resulting in over 80% of instituted claims being invalidated. Additionally, Supreme Court rulings have limited available remedies for infringement and created uncertainty around patent eligibility and claim definiteness. These changes have negatively impacted many PIPCO valuations but also create opportunities for investors.
This document summarizes a court ruling on a motion to dismiss claims against three investors in Veoh Networks Inc. for secondary copyright infringement. The court held that while the complaint alleged the investors obtained control of Veoh through board seats and financing, it did not sufficiently plead that the investors were significantly involved in Veoh's alleged infringing activities to state valid claims of contributory copyright infringement against the investors. As a result, the court granted the investors' motion to dismiss the secondary liability claims against them.
The document summarizes various intellectual property law updates from several sources, including:
- The U.S. crackdown on piracy and counterfeit goods with additional FBI agents.
- A special fixed fee deal of $2700 from Marks & Clerk for Community Trade Mark applications in August and September.
- A case where the use of "eVisa" was found to dilute the "Visa" trademark by blurring the distinction between the marks.
- USPTO interim guidelines providing additional factors for determining patent eligibility in light of the Bilski decision.
This segment will discuss the statutory and procedural background of post-grant review proceedings. It will discuss the types of proceedings available and provide a high-level discussion of how the proceedings are conducted.
Part of the webinar series:
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
This document summarizes an article that examines the validity of intellectual property (IP) carve-outs in arbitration clauses in light of recent legal developments. It discusses how IP carve-outs are commonly used to exclude IP issues from arbitration, but cites justifications for this are weakening. Recent court rulings have made interim injunctions in IP disputes more difficult to obtain, and separating IP issues from other contractual issues is challenging, leading to prolonged disputes. Additionally, arbitration institutions have strengthened rules for interim relief in IP matters. Therefore, the document concludes IP carve-outs may not provide intended benefits and add unnecessary costs and delays.
The document discusses how the U.S. patent system has struggled to balance patent rights and preventing abuse. Recent legislation and court rulings aimed to curb frivolous lawsuits led to concerns the system favored accused infringers over patent owners. However, new court decisions indicate the pendulum may be shifting back toward balance, finding the right amount of power for both patent owners and accused infringers.
Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. NikeMichael Cicero
Discusses the January 2013 Supreme Court decision bearing on the issue of when a covenant not to sue can nullify a claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity. This was a TM case, but its principles are expected to apply to patent cases, as well.
The document summarizes several topics in trademark and copyright law from a legal conference, including:
1) Updates to federal and state trademark registration processes and hot topics in trademark litigation.
2) Recent copyright cases on issues like orphan works, public display of copyrighted broadcasts, and performance royalties for artists.
3) A summary of the Perfect 10 v. Google case regarding search engines and copyright infringement.
Kenneth Horton Main provides contact information and introduces the topic of two recent US Supreme Court decisions regarding patent litigation.
The Supreme Court ruled in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness that district courts have more flexibility to determine if a patent case is "exceptional" and merits awarding attorney fees to the winning party. The previous Federal Circuit standard for determining an exceptional case was overly rigid.
In Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a case is exceptional is reviewed only for abuse of discretion, making it more difficult for exceptional case rulings to be overturned on appeal.
These rulings are likely to result in more motions for attorneys
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and LicensingAusGOAL
This presentation was conducted for ODI Queensland by Baden Appleyard. It examines the law and licensing issues associated with open data, in particular from a Queensland perspective. It was presented on 21 October 2015. Links to further resources exist within the presentation.
Legal Hold Workshop - ARMA International - Las Vegas - Oct 23, 2008John Jablonski
3 hour workshop on Legal Holds, presented at ARMA International\'s annual conference in Las Vegas on October 23, 2008. The program was highly rated by attendees, rated as 3rd out of 85 educational sessions.
This document contains notes from a presentation on misdemeanor prosecution. It discusses various evidentiary and legal issues that commonly come up in DUI cases, such as playing 911 tapes or using HGN video in opening statements. It also summarizes several cases related to probable cause for DUI stops and arrests, jury instructions on field sobriety test refusals, and the admissibility of driver license hearing transcripts. The document provides guidance on proper collection and submission of blood samples to toxicology labs and discusses defenses related to lab procedures and results. Overall, the document outlines evidentiary and procedural strategies for prosecuting DUI and other misdemeanor cases.
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Two Cases on Attorneys' Fees in Patent CasesPatton Boggs LLP
The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases that deal with awarding attorneys' fees in patent cases. In the first case, Octane Fitness v. ICON Health, the Court will consider whether to lower the standard for determining an "exceptional case" in which fees can be awarded. In the second case, Highmark v. Allcare Health, the Court will determine how much deference appellate courts must give to lower court decisions on awarding fees. These rulings could make it easier for prevailing parties to recoup fees and deter patent holders from filing weak infringement claims.
Managing IP In Light of Changing US Patent LawIanliu
This document discusses strategic intellectual property management and how U.S. patent law is changing. It provides an overview of strategic IP management, including creating, maximizing, and realizing IP value. It then summarizes how recent Supreme Court cases and proposed patent law reforms have impacted licensing and litigation strategies. When asked about a competitor's new product, the document advises reviewing existing patents for potential licensing or litigation in light of evolving legal standards regarding obviousness and injunctions.
Patent Reform 2015 - Andrew Baluch presentation to Rutgers UniversityDipanjan "DJ" Nag
This document discusses various efforts at patent reform in 2015 at both the federal and state levels. At the federal level, the executive branch proposed reforms and Congress considered bills like the Innovation Act. These addressed issues like fee shifting, real party in interest disclosure, and staying customer suits. Meanwhile, states passed laws regulating abusive patent demand letters. Courts also addressed several patent reform issues through decisions that intersected with proposed legislation. Overall, the document analyzes the complex interplay between different government entities on the multi-faceted topic of patent reform.
1) Reasonable royalty calculations are important in patent infringement cases, as they represent the minimum damages a patent holder is entitled to and are the most common form of damages sought, particularly by non-practicing entities.
2) There are two main approaches to calculating reasonable royalties - the analytical approach based on infringer's profits, and the hypothetical negotiation approach which aims to determine the royalty the patent holder and infringer would have agreed to.
3) The Georgia-Pacific factors provide a legal framework for assessing reasonable royalties, considering factors relevant to a hypothetical negotiation between willing parties such as existing royalty agreements, industry standards, and the merits of the invention.
The document summarizes highlights from the second year of post-issuance proceedings administered by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It discusses several notable cases from 2014 related to inter partes review, covered business method review, and post-grant review. Specifically, it discusses how the Federal Circuit addressed the appealability of PTAB decisions on petitions and clarified that only final written decisions can be appealed. It also summarizes trends in petitions filed and issues considered in the second year of these new proceedings introduced by the America Invents Act.
This document summarizes several recent and upcoming Supreme Court cases related to intellectual property law. It discusses key holdings and issues in cases like Cuozzo v. Lee regarding the appealability of Patent Office decisions, Halo v. Pulse regarding standards for enhanced patent damages, and Samsung v. Apple regarding the scope of design patent damages. It also previews several patent cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear in its upcoming 2016 term.
Gober Rivette_published in Intellectual Asset Magazine Issue 75_December 2015Mark Gober
The patent enforcement environment has significantly changed since 2010-2011, making it more difficult for public IP companies (PIPCOs) to enforce their patents. Key developments include the America Invents Act which established new post-grant proceedings allowing third parties to challenge patent validity, resulting in over 80% of instituted claims being invalidated. Additionally, Supreme Court rulings have limited available remedies for infringement and created uncertainty around patent eligibility and claim definiteness. These changes have negatively impacted many PIPCO valuations but also create opportunities for investors.
This document summarizes a court ruling on a motion to dismiss claims against three investors in Veoh Networks Inc. for secondary copyright infringement. The court held that while the complaint alleged the investors obtained control of Veoh through board seats and financing, it did not sufficiently plead that the investors were significantly involved in Veoh's alleged infringing activities to state valid claims of contributory copyright infringement against the investors. As a result, the court granted the investors' motion to dismiss the secondary liability claims against them.
The document summarizes various intellectual property law updates from several sources, including:
- The U.S. crackdown on piracy and counterfeit goods with additional FBI agents.
- A special fixed fee deal of $2700 from Marks & Clerk for Community Trade Mark applications in August and September.
- A case where the use of "eVisa" was found to dilute the "Visa" trademark by blurring the distinction between the marks.
- USPTO interim guidelines providing additional factors for determining patent eligibility in light of the Bilski decision.
This segment will discuss the statutory and procedural background of post-grant review proceedings. It will discuss the types of proceedings available and provide a high-level discussion of how the proceedings are conducted.
Part of the webinar series:
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022
See more at https://www.financialpoise.com/webinars/
This document summarizes an article that examines the validity of intellectual property (IP) carve-outs in arbitration clauses in light of recent legal developments. It discusses how IP carve-outs are commonly used to exclude IP issues from arbitration, but cites justifications for this are weakening. Recent court rulings have made interim injunctions in IP disputes more difficult to obtain, and separating IP issues from other contractual issues is challenging, leading to prolonged disputes. Additionally, arbitration institutions have strengthened rules for interim relief in IP matters. Therefore, the document concludes IP carve-outs may not provide intended benefits and add unnecessary costs and delays.
The document discusses how the U.S. patent system has struggled to balance patent rights and preventing abuse. Recent legislation and court rulings aimed to curb frivolous lawsuits led to concerns the system favored accused infringers over patent owners. However, new court decisions indicate the pendulum may be shifting back toward balance, finding the right amount of power for both patent owners and accused infringers.
Covenants Not to Sue in the Wake of Already LLC v. NikeMichael Cicero
Discusses the January 2013 Supreme Court decision bearing on the issue of when a covenant not to sue can nullify a claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity. This was a TM case, but its principles are expected to apply to patent cases, as well.
The document summarizes several topics in trademark and copyright law from a legal conference, including:
1) Updates to federal and state trademark registration processes and hot topics in trademark litigation.
2) Recent copyright cases on issues like orphan works, public display of copyrighted broadcasts, and performance royalties for artists.
3) A summary of the Perfect 10 v. Google case regarding search engines and copyright infringement.
Kenneth Horton Main provides contact information and introduces the topic of two recent US Supreme Court decisions regarding patent litigation.
The Supreme Court ruled in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness that district courts have more flexibility to determine if a patent case is "exceptional" and merits awarding attorney fees to the winning party. The previous Federal Circuit standard for determining an exceptional case was overly rigid.
In Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a case is exceptional is reviewed only for abuse of discretion, making it more difficult for exceptional case rulings to be overturned on appeal.
These rulings are likely to result in more motions for attorneys
ODI Queensland - Open Data Essentials - Law and LicensingAusGOAL
This presentation was conducted for ODI Queensland by Baden Appleyard. It examines the law and licensing issues associated with open data, in particular from a Queensland perspective. It was presented on 21 October 2015. Links to further resources exist within the presentation.
Legal Hold Workshop - ARMA International - Las Vegas - Oct 23, 2008John Jablonski
3 hour workshop on Legal Holds, presented at ARMA International\'s annual conference in Las Vegas on October 23, 2008. The program was highly rated by attendees, rated as 3rd out of 85 educational sessions.
This document contains notes from a presentation on misdemeanor prosecution. It discusses various evidentiary and legal issues that commonly come up in DUI cases, such as playing 911 tapes or using HGN video in opening statements. It also summarizes several cases related to probable cause for DUI stops and arrests, jury instructions on field sobriety test refusals, and the admissibility of driver license hearing transcripts. The document provides guidance on proper collection and submission of blood samples to toxicology labs and discusses defenses related to lab procedures and results. Overall, the document outlines evidentiary and procedural strategies for prosecuting DUI and other misdemeanor cases.