[E-trademarks] [Patentcenter] [Ip-transactions] [Patentpractice] Chevron Has been overruled by the S.Ct.

David Boundy DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com
Fri Jun 28 18:12:03 EDT 2024


Nope.  No court of appeals will review a decision just because it's
"unjust."  "Unjust" is not within the standard of review of any court I
know.  Court-court review is really narrow, court-agency review is even
narrower (see 5 USC 706 and Motor Vehicle Manufacturers v State Farm).
Wrong as a matter of law, ignores evidence, unsupported by substantial
evidence, short of constitutional or statutory right, without observance of
procedure required by law -- that's reviewable.  But "unjust?"  Nope.
There's not an appellate court in the U.S. that won't immediately dismiss
you out.

It looks like your unhappiness with agencies is in comparison with some
utopian perfection that simply doesn't exist.

*Loper Bright* is about courts (as they really exist) vs agencies (as they
really exist).  Both tribunals are constrained by the availability of
evidence, their procedural rules, and whatever stare decisis is applicable,
and just plain human error (district court judges are basically solo
actors, all agency rulemaking decisions are the product of large groups).
It's important to compare realistic apples vs realistic apples.  There's no
value in comparing to some idealistic, all-knowing, self-effacing oracle
that could do perfect justice.   For the concerns you raise, all are better
at agencies (other than the PTO) than at courts.

On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:54 PM Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
wrote:

> I would bet more money on my chance of getting an appellate court to hear
> and fix unjust actions against me than a paper pusher in some
> Administrative Agency who tells me to go [ ] myself…
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> *canady + lortz** LLP* <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 5:52 PM
> *To:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>
> *Cc:* welched123 at gmail.com; For bug reports, feature requests, and tips
> and tricks about Patent Center. <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>; David
> Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>; For patent practitioners. This is not
> for laypersons to seek legal advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>;
> For discussion of intellectual property practice on topics that do not
> easily fall within other listservs such as Patentpractice and e-Trademarks
> and Designs. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>; for trademark practitioners <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] [Ip-transactions] [Patentpractice] Chevron
> Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> Your understanding of courts' willingness to reevaluate a decision once
> made is -- umm -- unrealistic.
>
>
>
> At agencies, Petitions for Rulemaking (are supposed) to be a basis to get
> an *agency* to reconsider, to meet the concerns you're raising.  And
> they're available at any time, not just when parties have an actual case or
> controversy.   But courts (at least courts within the same circuit) are
> highly reluctant to re-evaluate a peer-or-higher decision, for at least
> several years.  Stare decisis is a very strong force.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:43 PM Suzannah K. Sundby <
> suzannah at canadylortz.com> wrote:
>
> At the state level, I tend to agree.  And here we are talking about
> Federal Agencies and hence Federal questions for Federal courts.
>
>
>
> The thing is, with putting statutory interpretation back in the hands of
> the courts, they need not defer to an agency’s interpretation… which means
> that one can keep appealing up until reason prevails.
>
>
>
> With Chevron deference, once a lower court says we defer because of
> Chevron deference, GAME OVER.  No appealable issue that a higher appellate
> court can hear (with the exception of extremely rare cases if such exists).
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> canady + lortz LLP <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* welched123 at gmail.com <welched123 at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 5:38 PM
> *To:* 'For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about
> Patent Center.' <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>; 'David Boundy' <
> DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>; 'For patent
> practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice.' <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; 'For discussion of intellectual
> property practice on topics that do not easily fall within other listservs
> such as Patentpractice and e-Trademarks and Designs. This is not for
> laypersons to seek legal advice.' <ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>;
> 'for trademark practitioners' <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* RE: [Patentcenter] [Ip-transactions] [Patentpractice] Chevron
> Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> I would love to believe that; but, I think the courts are now as
> politicized as the administrative agencies.
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentcenter
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 5:34 PM
> *To:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>; For patent
> practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; For discussion of intellectual
> property practice on topics that do not easily fall within other listservs
> such as Patentpractice and e-Trademarks and Designs. This is not for
> laypersons to seek legal advice. <ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>;
> For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about Patent Center.
> <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>; for trademark practitioners <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] [Ip-transactions] [Patentpractice] Chevron
> Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> I have more faith in the ability to petition the courts for grievances
> than an Administrative State telling me to “suck it up, it is what it is”.
>
>
>
> Much like what the FBI has been doing with seizures…
>
>
>
>
> https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fbi-took-an-innocent-womans-savings-linda-martin-fifth-amendment-forfeiture-us-private-vaults-338fa5c0?st=8y9z5we6dm50gso&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
>
>
>
> “When the FBI took her life savings from a safe-deposit box during a 2021
> raid of US Private Vaults in Beverly Hills, Calif., she … received a notice
> stating that the government wanted to forfeit her money.
>
>
>
> The notice’s dense legalese pointed to the bureau’s statutory authority
> for forfeiting her property…
>
>
>
> Confused, Ms. Martin took the first option the notice laid out: filing a
> petition with the FBI. She later discovered, however, that doing so
> conceded her property’s forfeitability, leaving it to the bureau to decide
> if it would give her life savings back as a matter of administrative grace.”
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is the Petition notice:  Ex.-A-Linda-Martin-Notice-June-10-2021_Redacted.pdf
> (ij.org)
> <https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Ex.-A-Linda-Martin-Notice-June-10-2021_Redacted.pdf>
>
>
>
> So, if one files only a petition, and no one else files a claim, your
> petition will be decided by the seizing agency.
>
>
>
> Here is the code/law that is cited: 28 CFR Part 9 | Forfeiture.gov
> <https://www.forfeiture.gov/cfr28cfr9.htm>
>
> *Releases.* In addition to the contents of the petition for remission or
> mitigation set forth in paragraph (c) of this section, upon request of the
> agency, the petitioner shall also furnish the agency with an instrument
> executed by the titled or registered owner and any other known claimant of
> an interest in the property releasing interest in such property.
>
> *…*
>
> *Ruling.* Upon receipt of the petition and the agency report, the ruling
> official for the seizing agency shall review the petition and the report,
> if any, and shall rule on the merits of the petition. No hearing shall be
> held.
>
> *…*
>
> Only one request for reconsideration of a denial of a petition shall be
> considered.
>
> So, the fine print on the petition essentially says by submitting a
> petition, you confirm your request to have the FBI return your seized
> property according to FBI’s rules and procedures and that the FBI only
> returns seized property if the FBI decides the property should be
> returned.  And since one agrees to proceed with the FBI’s rules and
> procedures, one essentially waives their 4th Amendment rights.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> canady + lortz LLP <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 5:29 PM
> *To:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Suzannah K. Sundby <suzannah at canadylortz.com>; For discussion of
> intellectual property practice on topics that do not easily fall within
> other listservs such as Patentpractice and e-Trademarks and Designs. This
> is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>; For bug reports, feature requests,
> and tips and tricks about Patent Center. <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>;
> For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; for trademark practitioners <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>; Pete Sawicki <psawicki at wck.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ip-transactions] [Patentcenter] [Patentpractice] Chevron
> Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> Another big difference -- agencies are required to either accommodate
> minority interests, if feasible -- or explain why not.  Courts aren't.
> Courts don't gateher enough input to do the fine tuning and
> interest-balancing that agencies do through rulemaking.
>
>
>
> Agencies are required to address Petitions for Rulemaking.  Courts have to
> wait for case or controversy.
>
>
>
> Again, that's the law as it applies to the rest of the executive branch.
> The administrative law ends at the front door on Dulaney St.  Don't confuse
> the rest of the federal government with the cheating, self-interested
> %^&!@(#s in Alexandria.
>
>
>
> I predict that it won't take long to realize that courts aren't all that
> good at being policy-makers.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:17 PM David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> That's a perfect example of how agencies under *Chevron* have been more
> democratic than (I predict) courts will be under * Loper Bright*.  For an
> agency to issue such an interpretation, the agency had to observe
> notice-and-comment and all the other requirements of the Administrative
> Procedure Act, and all those other laws that you see at the end of almost
> every NPRM, and it could only go forward with at least tacit blessing of
> the President.  Most regs of that form have to go through multiple rounds,
> each modified to meet public concern, and it's only after multiple rounds
> of tuning that they issue as final rules.
>
>
>
> In contrast, when courts interpret -- and they're just as capable of
> absurdity -- as a practical matter, there's no public participation at
> district court level, and the only way to have influence at either Circuit
> Court or Supreme Court is formal amicus brief, which is out of reach for
> almost everyone.
>
>
>
> Be careful what you wish for, and be careful to compare apples to apples.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:07 PM Suzannah K. Sundby <
> suzannah at canadylortz.com> wrote:
>
> Imho, the decision reduces the risk of Govt tyranny… Federal Agencies
> interpreting statutory law in an absurd way that bypasses Congress and/or
> turns the purpose of a statute on its head… e.g., Title IX being
> interpreted to force schools to allow biological males in female sports.
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> canady + lortz LLP <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* Ip-transactions <ip-transactions-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *David Boundy via Ip-transactions
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 12:57 PM
> *To:* For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about Patent
> Center. <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>; For patent practitioners. This
> is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; for trademark practitioners <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>; listserv for IP transactions
> practitioners <ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>; Pete Sawicki <
> psawicki at wck.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Ip-transactions] [Patentcenter] [Patentpractice] Chevron
> Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> Whew, that was a long read.
>
>
>
> I EMPHATICALLY disagree that "This decision is a start towards a more
> democratic government!!"  There are things to be said on both sides, but
> that statement is pure ignorance.  Justice Kagan sums it up -- "A rule of
> judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris."  Executive
> branch bureaucrats have some political accountability, and work from
> records that are thousands to hundreds of thousands of pages.  Judges
> don't.  (Yesterday, Justice Alito in *Moyle* patted himself on the back
> for mastering a record of 1300 pages and a couple hours of oral argument.
> If an agency had made a major decision on such a thin record, it'd be
> arbitrary and capricious.)
>
>
>
> On balance, I think Justice Kagan looked more carefully at the statutory
> text and history, looked at a lot more of the practical consequences,
> thought more carefully, and exercised more judgment.  Kagan notes how
> Chevron has narrowed since its high-water mark in the late 1990s -- I
> agree, back then, it was a real problem.  But it self-corrected.  (Her
> explanation is darn close to my brief   https://ssrn.com/abstract=4520183
> )  I suggest reading her dissent (starting at page 82) first, then read the
> majority -- the majority's willful blindness is pretty apparent if you read
> Kagan first.  (I did it the conventional way, but I was deeply steeped in
> the case, so I could see my "magical thinking" flashers going off as I read
> Roberts.  If you're not an administrative law expert, read Kagan first.)
>
>
>
> There are two classes to whom *Loper Bright *will be genuinely beneficial.
>
>
>
> First, litigators. Justice Roberts has really underestimated the amount of
> uncertainty and re-litigation this is going to bring.
>
>
>
> Second, patent and trademark lawyers.  The Patent Office is a special case
> -- Congress gave the PTO and its senior executives motivations to cheat
> that don't apply to any other part of the executive branch.  We need to
> remember that the level of disrespect the PTO shows to the law is not
> pervasive throughout the government.  No other agency has the same
> incentives to tell the law to go to hell.
>
>
>
> A couple people have asked me whether I think this affects the *Chestek*
> case.  Maybe way at the margins, but I don't see anything direct.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 11:17 AM Pete Sawicki via Patentcenter <
> patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> This decision is a start towards a more democratic government!!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Z. Peter Sawicki
>
>
>
>
> Westman, Champlin and Koehler, P.A.
> Suite 1100
> 121 South Eighth Street
> Minneapolis, MN 55402
>
> Direct Dial: 612-330-0581
>
> Cell: 612-418-9989
>
> Fax: 612-334-3312
>
> Email: psawicki at wck.com
>
> Website: www.wck.com
>
> Skype: Z.Peter.Sawicki
>
> Linkedin:  www.linkedin.com/in/zpetersawicki
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WARNING: The information contained in this transmission may be privileged
> or confidential. It is intended only for the above identified recipient. If
> you are not the intended recipient, please forward this transmission to the
> author. Please delete this transmission and all copies. Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:13 AM Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentcenter <
> patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> Well, for example, with all their ‘interpretations’ that they claim give
> then the authority to enact, e.g., their proposed terminal disclaimer
> rules, IDS rules, etc., we can send comments to their proposed rulemaking
> and simply state that the USPTO has no authority to do so and slap a copy
> SCOTUS’ decision thereto the comment letter.
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ssundby/> *|* Partner
>
> canady + lortz LLP <http://www.canadylortz.com/>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *Dan Feigelson via Patentcenter
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 10:59 AM
> *To:* For bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about Patent
> Center. <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Dan Feigelson <djf at iliplaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] [Patentpractice] Chevron Has been overruled
> by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> My response too.
>
>
>
> Question is, how does this affect the PTO's current cheating?
>
>
>
> And how does it affect Pam Chestek's cert petition?
>
>
>
> DJF
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 5:54 PM Suzannah K. Sundby via Patentcenter <
> patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> YAHOO!
>
>
>
> Suzannah K. Sundby
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/1cN6ac6Up__LhkRGoN1yCWTV3E3jqrrwtsmH3WKQwAGkcleksjsFN2SnBMg2jdL6H5NX8xB5povUqXUtthrBTvnUeMADmC8pLiTqA7rguloQOZDfDYrYvhGdZocnYkprjzdKK91DHW3cdt9AJouTfPWZ-x34r5Vc3E7cBwsR7zy38oycP-3oN5NKsKUlD8hd-TGXbCY3TqOqg_YUJQoevzQIjP2HydKQ_ppVylAeUmPuupooTotm-olSN_R34syVzusOFX2rx8_QiAMBwHj-_rrBmXoYfTw0StEtxabxTI4>
> *|* Partner
>
> canady + lortz LLP
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/tNfNWdfClsQXsbnKGPnDX85oAmCPji4f4b79synl_SeYTGCfmnKvYUKUb1r4YXuJ_5_vydCL5-o0cWIPEsRhHpbnvdxa5r2mhf8AXt6T9yFoiTzPepuUTtwBK6qr3mPi2S7dp31zh-H59EDIY9PevWcbmhGn75qBDxJuA5igAtN9WrjM-kKgQcKvtRKmutoaOdB6JcQz8A1ZNzxPgb51d0tF_xY54RwmBp-iEqs4y_1RyO5K6dj9tYyu1VpxlIcSkXtDmftK2uTykjrvIR_eidealhM>
>
> 1050 30th Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20007
>
> T: 202.486.8020
>
> F: 202.540.8020
>
> suzannah at canadylortz.com
>
> www.canadylortz.com
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/T9OO9tXyKotP1hS1BpBZ0EcmeZn4iCz5WjpDBOOBr5ugINrR4IVMKpFg_3KP0veR7FYCTvJqwDLBi30gDdlePV5-JKBpHkA5Ah_5Xw90rpeHzQIERyMSwxnZ3kz2ZjaYKEDsP07QeJLGStAAqQ5nA1Y-o8oVKeuyImJPuR5BwBRTZWWc25cc_Z6zI-bzzWDQ51jSQvVGn16O5gZXGW08Pl6nFEwzNCY0GOdovLLCicouzTL3RXhQH_m5VyEKIWYsm_XWKbBT6sSoT5buUWEzs1iLVjo>
>
> Confidentiality Notice:  This message is being sent by or on behalf of a
> lawyer.  It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which
> it is addressed.  This communication may contain information that is
> proprietary, privileged or confidential, or otherwise legally exempt from
> disclosure.  If you are not the named addressee, you may not read, print,
> retain, copy, or disseminate this message or any part.  If you have
> received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by
> e-mail and delete all copies of the message.
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *David Boundy via Patentcenter
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 10:30 AM
> *To:* For patent practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal
> advice. <patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* David Boundy <PatentProcedure at gmail.com>;
> ip-transactions at oppedahl-lists.com; users of Patentcenter <
> patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>; Oppedahl lists <
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] [Patentpractice] Chevron Has been overruled
> by the S.Ct.
>
>
>
> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/FHrrA7yfUxcL58mYAjyAssRu45Hnwsrx-lDymX1GNFmSGPtWbNyBHzcTfDXSkiRvfjs2bZhhO_IixXinMVlDL4zAFZW7RZYcy0NEZhtStfNyw_5FG7AFlJB_xc7zB2ov8c9joIPrZ0j5q59ELG16T1Rz-1ZdGLzCnErXT4tC8d6b7HG1IrdYJh2cMl9BKyxDSxoqzAnFGA4BO1ubjvmGGtFOfGJBLOF2LvGCqJJO5l7Lcg4L6nlIlkDgOvi0Tjm-2BEink6t6U-rz5t9STw42FExGJnw2_DTzu8e4H7kc7uLrb0gZPORDWT1yCMXMWAX0JxBDc8Ldt4>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 10:24 AM Richard Straussman via Patentpractice <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> *Richard Straussman Senior Counsel Registered Patent Attorney *Member NY,
> NJ & CT Bars
> *. . . . . . . . . . . . . .*
> *Weitzman Law Offices, LLC*
> *Intellectual Property Law*
> 425 Eagle Rock Avenue, Suite 401 (PLEASE NOTE THE SUITE CHANGE)
> Roseland, NJ 07068
> *direct line* 973.403.9943
> *main* 973.403.9940
> *fax* 973.403.9944
> *e-mail* rstraussman at weitzmanip.com
>
> *http://www.weitzmanip.com
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/_3Gd9a1dtD_BBYoaMCl_OxwRep5SM8HU1vvGd2u-PiRPS2rmOb40eIZXLKHYAxCZR-abDY0TOxa9yH7j-oFL4SUbbU6qUpDAZPDy2FfEjfe6nUMUC01-SN7K1sV5ypXEc0x0EzfwG7TMSRsViN5N7lD2eXcDuhrvEEGjn3u5avqE_eyQqgz5ZB0ybIv2xZyrg-Cxe4ofgRjzPigk07vAmiuUS2KYCnwSm_GEb5rCqXTRMCFNQl30T9KNQH0-zpW5EqfeedpMdojSrO4ohfeyLxsZ6Q>*
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/I2Yfru5N_V1eR-7AwaShqoiPOW41zlCR8dP6X8TLX5rNyRhWQNK0FXQZbCszaHhWpz9RzACOweTnfXlDdYkLlrdpgeB5Gm_lZhiFk0qoVnPbTo586OdNdaxsiVxPZLlBdaivg69O1v_DWWITSTdH2I9SGTPcn0dKBGFVszK8z18mQriCu3zUkAvEevibQp-yJRyPAJilbB6SvCVgIE4_rtqvv0CEeOzCFoEx4ofEqnSXk35OPPHc9O-zDn2xgO8DqieHYdE6eAatwHA99zDiMQqyI5vZKdsW0-znWD-czOyNkzoE1_buu4szqPDG3NfFkURegwi0N9s9AjCEky7yXxQ4YVV1oiGSQg>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> *      [image: Cambridge Technology Law LLC]
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/zaS4i3w_Wr2EMCdAM5R6s2kg7HCNBnnEUXu--o2idhyHXLqvYId8sHDwrR0xb0O-qaq0DGZQWhZ-jo1zDBH7Va4BO_lP4N9K9gL74J6_N1wLOHAy_vuKgyPlTHZQc8yUO30EVUsXHZFJgwnJks9DW4VMu-5S0qY2G2nbQgsg6HLZb7FWycmi-omXCCxlOWMFCZjc0UFG1cDNn17hv_5qOIQfC-JJlRalLOVBAd3W-u_f8g5_wcoZtsNnp9WRzhIwxedBQkG9slUeFQY0v2oUnZ_gXygVjMpkwkZ7juM2tagx0yrsoYtsOoxUYDn607kZaeY5AkE-e3e1uFk>*
>
> Listed as one of the world's 300 leading intellectual property strategists
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/ZDqcnTWkRSXu292UcqifIarP9WjQa5mcuo6dWwF-JLZXwvRwLjq6C4RTMB8hKsCD791BfvOpxgROHu5v6wiByo_LP_L_eZYzx5JRt2cjlk4hFPHP1htFVYdhkiP3R2I5HY1jr2S9tTFVJTYVxsn7SRv0PAqbAZyCpy_kx9mWYXvTKeLjS1QS4qg_QTp9zDxnrVLiKBSWsv3yu-4koEPdNK8PDGiyyZCUKMy9NvDUd95vpoLlgi7PAq4k5DCm92JHqXq3hWwcOeYmTcvvGXbWXyel50UqpxcmgAGOJ-KLS4pXi2JE-b-NJvb_6wNt9HAwr5SH3g4uxsaK4MU>
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/rCIoysBhQN5YMp9hugRg21boJsdtwJCFABylxUHC3mkIOlOnRI7WzPy_mmFfAUoCKdFt6u710alNdeZdC0jB83bSqPbLhHyEK_xYcDzFYj4FvpV6M0rWz2uG8vzh01zXp2Z_TNCkPgJPMbTZEm8ZDnXzT0q5M6Vl8pxT7jD7FX2mgd5_cR4feNQLUaTnZRs939W3Xk7g5LDOrDn-pG7gYKDjKTpHAD5tuTYeRquvheW5Ffb3n-FdxZrE_1bBttNtMJBrganYmhDKGYeIwRBrXj-GHmyM-fg2Ug>
>
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/zSYl4WC3MnQMAEy4pQWB79umlsR2EwWeOmK3owmp40H5ngLZ1pe-xohyNJhFYoN-4KVq7CQYTOufF1r4ohxizmddy8Xin_9mdX_W93hA2q2_-2TXVqpbAr6Fs3iYnmVblEZV7NaoiFxI2wfa9jXX4UsEds-YlW9sFKKg58blw1igM6vyq0Fgt-rFMlxi_dSXpYYXLpq-Qeqwfz13bK_tYr-POBQA1sByQNc1umVrOLTg7KgGoOLbLoZqxCm7xcMrSlwsqEjbv0SqWi4Mph7LPaz3XbuvvbLJSGsFueHmgMZvzYM7cV9r-_al75aVZpiYO0A>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/aT3IijY5NjtiQoHvolEeYc471fqWRD03TjA76g33l2HDwkhQJgKJzFvQwByuVSTTqgldhzyHKDuFf9oehFGY936iRUBVZcsSgSDW2C31f63PJyVStAMx3EqO7Hr3i7R-dWK6xP8OSl7IaYEDuOu_JrHi8tEB5qDut4OitNsjssyiBZm13gwpDhzhMmLfJeyNjG9P7Wz_ntnkb99ioGo1nWw0M2cnsjTmup2EdHXOXDAiJ56hsTjfrUJDaS_budiqOw3orzyJHCkBi1gvVYw96H2OiCzLG3bbpdLpUCW6aZ7AA5wHtKUax_-B6WtviE2PUy4>
>
> *David Boundy
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/ho_yQxqF6YUcaw-LQ64nSgMBFLs86nhPAt-8tlYsd79JI-TnDxEge0Mpamro13JGQldh0haRZSNfMzJslH46ctokUKiK0LpP3omIA0CEiGo9LRvIRQN6y6RugsB1h75r-gtRlwvBB5OLKuCexSE_2cBuEV2oM6EO4k_cSWiYEGv54gqX1mtjfIS1nypPIxOjlCdMLvDI9QJzgNBWiNIqkHPcEh5D2yCaIYY93V4cWzdfdB2tcfzBbOtfTeNZTpJnefbTqgNwYXKcdzQURLxjgI20rLuDeCNGhUr_56OtZWkYH3WwODqdk3bg1T8XeHQzw9T5ubjF-SdEBpY>*
>
> DBoundy at cambridgetechlaw.com <dboundy at cambridgetechlaw.com> / +1
> 646.472.9737 <%2B1%206464729737>
>
> *Cambridge Technology Law LLC*
> 686 Massachusetts Avenue #201, Cambridge  MA  02139
> http://www.CambridgeTechLaw.com
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/6FuAOfjl2quxn03aj_KcZYiJaGDWJsXWgbLUVleqdt-uf5KoYPXvOsl1twGDoTRhkpCkQP8UU9iodIOVP2k5wm5lQl_P_romCa_NiRBT3xKO8EyY629EZHtgZClue6auVo1TSt438QWi9u12XcDLa4kWxQNA5zzSe_G1ta0t_NrEaZwqZZHiW4gb7qGGBOcxKIcOk3sfdC74unxMH08wPpCmcVJP9wPxwkuV2WEDbZRtnggaQqFB7b38045RDyq8fi7LQmIotkd0YyXz6qg-9Wu0NuEcSw>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/DavidBoundy
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/XtvH4nDis3pI9qRovQRpJxzuvXalLa75XxtRfNSqTqOGsgk5LzVr_I8YFzFw8ZxOiS_DJ4kSXSb-viojdhGPdbBDaWKankon74GQVuMyH2MWmfdCNSXm7gKJgGhWozA_5Ad8yC_fYzSZymkpuGU3ZcmGe_jzd1_nUIrvtjLqXM_nAz3jpDCSL3WNIrtu2PxCFKJiufIhr6ycphI9zaNwymE5m0zk9e6N0hzvXox45MfM3u0NYIGw4l99UzRC55v1RCJ8IQDP6Hz9MbOvd1xXrH7sLbKbe06tyr76a6XGWZUk>
>
> mailing address
>
> PO Box 590638
>
> Newton MA   02459
>
>
> This communication is a confidential attorney-client communication
> intended only for the person named above or an authorized representative.
> Any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited, whether by the author or recipients.  Any legal,
> business or tax information contained in this communication, including
> attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth
> analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute for a formal opinion, nor is
> it sufficient to avoid legal or other adverse consequences to the
> recipient. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the
> addressee), you may not copy, use, disclose or distribute this
> communication or attribute to the Firm any information contained in this
> communication. If you have received this communication in error, please
> advise the sender by replying to this message or by telephone, and then
> promptly delete it.
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
> <https://gcfagjf.r.bh.d.sendibt3.com/tr/cl/x94b_WYyjqqnVlA-fopX0HuFlU4LPLe78pqLTMM3LU8o1i1tzuwlRNiRwPmVPsDGPDZvM2uZ6wFKGDUYp1tr8S2Q61u1FI2BBOsY6Pxgf9Z5AxGb03-ArODBZyPGIxKtqzTqzYUWxFVbZ6huHw4CGDIImKjNgbe6yA53Nd5s1ECGgDAbyM-cUtN3BbYT9iYMZbg93dFXhK-k5rVHC0qBwKm9UVHgxABoBnVtIKTfwpO0V0WWOiSRJRYea6_2Qfxnk7HZiLa_mdwhOPRBymJu_t9d0RZZ_l_NkzuQKyzW_XYR8Ytiru4k_xoc54lUq71bB9lZUHprfiRUoJs5uy2tLx-GZ-cH8NQ>
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> *dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> *dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> *dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> <https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
>
> *David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
>
> P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459
>
> Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
>
> *dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
> <http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
>
> Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470
> <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>
> Click here to add me to your contacts.
> <https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
>


-- 


<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>

*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC

P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA  02459

Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707

*dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
<http://www.potomaclaw.com>*

Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470 <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>

Click here to add me to your contacts.
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240628/738980db/attachment.htm>


More information about the E-trademarks mailing list