[E-trademarks] [Patentcenter] [EXT] Re: [Ip-transactions] [Patentpractice] Chevron Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
David Boundy
DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com
Sat Jun 29 14:20:31 EDT 2024
DT> Neither the courts nor the agencies are to be involved in legislating.
DT> My hope is that Congress does better on drafting legislation. And, if
not, the courts bounce it back to them.
The opening and closing of Doreen's email give a pretty good illustration
of how understanding the issue actually decided, understanding the relative
decison-making expertise of agencies and courts, and avoiding magical
thinking, are really important.
First, for hundreds of years, it's been understood that "judges do and must
legislate" Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., *Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen*,
244 U.S. 205, 221 (1917) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Courts have been
legislating since, oh, 1150 or so. Remember the origin of the term "common
law" -- where parliament had not yet made law, courts had to have some law
to apply, so they had to make it up, and rely on each other's decisions as
law. In this context, I'm not advancing that as either good or bad -- it's
just a fact. For purposes of this email, all I'm commenting is that
"Neither the courts nor the agencies are to be involved in legislating" is
not a helpful framework for understanding how lawmakign in the United
States works, and unhelpful to understanding what *Chevron* and *Loper
Bright* are about.
Second, no matter how careful any legislature will be, there will always be
some ambiguities, Justice Kagan gives a bullet list of concrete examples
in her dissent https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
at pages 86-87. Judge Posner explained the problem in one of my favorite
cases, *Hoctor v Dept of Agriculture, *
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17995305163137985182 To wish
away the need to resolve ambiguity is just magical thinking.
The inevitable existence of ambiguity creates the inevitable need that
someone have authority to interpret to resolve those ambiguities (Posner's
*Hoctor* decision is again helpful to understand). To make the decisions
they have to make, both courts and agencies have to find an authoritative
way to interpret those ambiguities.
The *Chevron/Loper Bright* question isn't about who "legislates." It's
only about *who* interprets *ambiguities* in legislation. *Chevron *put
that task of interpretation in the hands of a tribunal with the authority
to investigate (rather than being institutionally confined to only the
evidence the parties put before them after exercising whatever power and
expense they have to develop evidence through their own investigation),
with authority to consult with experts to vet the facts put before them by
parties (agencies do, courts can't), the obligation to address contrary
evidence (agencies must, courts don't have to, and as we see here, some
judges don't), who are required to conduct their decisionmaking with a good
deal of public participation (agencies are so required, as the Ninth
Circuit explained in its decision in this very case
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1275631280679738361, courts
aren't), who typically make decisions in months instead of years, who have
easy mechanisms for reconsideration that the agency is *required* to pay
attention to (vs the *way *uphill climb of a petition for rehearing *en
banc), *and whose interpretations have nationally uniform effect (rather
than going up through thirteen circuits and waiting until the Supremes take
it up as one of their 80 cases per year), by a tribunal with some indirect
level of political accountability. I think there shoudl be real bounds on
that division of labor (see my brief at https://ssrn.com/abstract=4520183 )
but in my view, there's expertise on both sides, and *Chevron* (as narrowed
since 2010 or so) is darn close to the right division of labor.
*Loper Bright *puts that decisionmaking *entirely* in the other set of
hands. I think that's magical thinking, and a really unsophisticated
understanding of how agencies and courts actually work and their relative
institutional expertise. But that's just my opinion.
(There is one bad apple agency, where Congress created incentives for both
the agency and agency executives to cheat. But that doesn't translate to
the rest of the executive branch.)
On Sat, Jun 29, 2024 at 12:00 PM Doreen Trujillo <DTrujillo at vlplawgroup.com>
wrote:
> Neither the courts nor the agencies are to be involved in legislating.
> Only Congress is. Because Congress is answerable to the voters. Neither the
> courts nor agency personnel are.
>
> Agencies often change regs with each Administration. This is not optimal
> for the public.
>
> I have spoken to agency personnel who said they know more than the
> president, so the president should follow them. But, the elected president
> gets to set the agenda, not the agencies.
>
> Do you all know the facts of the case? If not, I suggest you take a look.
>
> From the Scotus blog:
>
> "...The justices had rebuffed
> <https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/buffington-v-mcdonough/>
> earlier
> <https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/guedes-v-bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives/>
> requests (including by one of the same lawyers who argued one of the
> cases here) to consider overruling *Chevron* before they agreed last year
> to take up a pair of challenges to a rule issued by the National Marine
> Fisheries Service. The agency had required the herring industry to pay for
> the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on
> board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for
> overfishing.
> The agency stopped the monitoring in 2023 because of a lack of funding.
> While the program was in effect, the agency reimbursed fishermen for the
> costs of the observers."
> The agency was requiring the industry to pay for their own government
> monitors to be on their boats. They were being paid more than the fishermen
> on the boats were, according to one of the plaintiffs.
>
> My hope is that Congress does better on drafting legislation. And, if not,
> the courts bounce it back to them.
>
> Doreen
>
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Patentcenter <patentcenter-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Alex Butterman via Patentcenter <patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 10:25:12 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>; David Boundy <
> DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Alex Butterman <abutterman at dbllawyers.com>; For patent
> practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; For bug reports, feature requests,
> and tips and tricks about Patent Center. <patentcenter 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>
> *Subject:* Re: [Patentcenter] [EXT] Re: [E-trademarks] [Ip-transactions]
> [Patentpractice] Chevron Has been overruled by the S.Ct.
>
>
> So I guess the Supreme Court will be hearing a lot of these cases for
> years to come because they’ll have to keep deciding Circuit splits from the
> dozens of Circuits and hundreds of judges interpreting and reinterpreting
> the same agency rules.
>
>
>
> *Alex Butterman*
>
> Partner
>
> *DUNLAP **BENNETT **& LUDWIG*
>
> *211 Church St., SE; Leesburg, VA 20175*
>
> T: 703-777-7319 – *BIO*
> <https://www.dbllawyers.com/attorney/alex-butterman/>
>
> [image: A blue and white logo Description automatically generated]
>
> This electronic message contains information from Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig
> PLLC and may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, any disclosure, copying, or use of the contents is prohibited.
> If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us and delete the
> message without copying or disclosing it.
>
>
>
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On Behalf
> Of *David Boundy via E-trademarks
> *Sent:* Friday, June 28, 2024 5:29 PM
> *To:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* David Boundy <DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com>; For patent practitioners.
> This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <
> patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com>; Pete Sawicki <psawicki at wck.com>; For
> bug reports, feature requests, and tips and tricks about Patent Center. <
> patentcenter 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:* [EXT] Re: [E-trademarks] [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?>
>
>
> This message contains information which may be confidential and legally
> privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
> to anyone this message or any information contained in the message. If you
> have received this message in error, please send me an email and delete
> this message. Any tax advice provided by VLP is for your use only and
> cannot be used to avoid tax penalties or for promotional or marketing
> purposes.
>
--
<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/20240629/cad42aa3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 34793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240629/cad42aa3/attachment.png>
More information about the E-trademarks
mailing list