|
|
| Novell Adds 4 Local Lawyers to the Trial Team - Updated |
 |
|
Friday, January 08 2010 @ 10:49 PM EST
|
Some new lawyers join the happy group about to try SCO v. Novell, on the Novell side. They are David Wright, Sterling Arthur Brennan, Kirk R. Harris, and Cara J. Baldwin. They are all with the Salt Lake City firm of Workman Nydegger. A little more home town advantage, maybe? Ms. Baldwin worked as Judge Ted Stewart's law clerk previously. And they are all IP litigation specialists.
Here are the notices:
01/06/2010 - 614 - NOTICE of Appearance by David R. Wright on behalf of Novell, Inc. (Wright, David) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
01/06/2010 - 615 - NOTICE of Appearance by Sterling Arthur Brennan on behalf of Novell, Inc. (Brennan, Sterling) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
01/06/2010 - 616 - NOTICE of Appearance by Kirk R. Harris on behalf of Novell, Inc. (Harris, Kirk) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
01/06/2010 - 617 - NOTICE of Appearance by Cara J. Baldwin on behalf of Novell, Inc. (Baldwin, Cara) (Entered: 01/06/2010)
Here are snips from their bios, to give you a feel:
David Wright:
Mr. Wright’s practice focuses on complex litigation of intellectual property matters, including trade secret, copyright, patent, and trademark cases. He also has experience in transactional matters such as licensing and other contractual matters, and opinions regarding patent validity, infringement, and unenforceability.
Mr. Wright has successfully represented the firm’s clients in courts and administrative agencies throughout the United States. He also has represented clients before arbitration and mediation panels. In addition, he has successfully coordinated enforcement efforts of international intellectual property rights throughout the European Union and Asia.
Mr. Brennan:
Mr. Brennan's practice focuses on complex business and intellectual property litigation. He has handled a broad range of litigation matters involving patents, trademarks and trade dress, copyrights, trade secrets, securities, antitrust, unfair business practices, insurance coverage, environmental, and other complex litigation in industries including computer components and software, biotechnology, financial institutions, real estate development and land use, and petroleum marketing.
Mr. Brennan has successfully tried cases and has handled appeals in both federal and state courts. Additionally, he has extensive experience representing clients in arbitrations, mediations and other alternative dispute resolution proceedings. He is admitted to practice in all state and federal courts in Utah and California, before the Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and before the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Brennan has received the highest rating for legal ability and ethical standards (AV) from Martindale-Hubbell. He is the former Chairman of the Business Litigation Section of the Orange County Bar Association, is the past Chair of the Orange County Chapter of the J. Reuben Clark Law Society, and a former member of the International Board of the Law Society. He is a member of the Order of the Barristers and has served as a Master of the Bench and officer of the Warren J. Ferguson Inn of Court.
Following graduation from law school, Mr. Brennan was a law clerk to a United States District Judge in Los Angeles, California. Prior to joining W|N as a shareholder in July 2003, Mr. Brennan was a litigation partner in the international law firm of Morrison & Foerster.
Mr. Harris:
Mr. Harris’ practice focuses on complex litigation including patent, trademark/trade dress, trade secret, and copyright actions.
Prior to law school, Mr. Harris worked as a metallurgist for one of the largest steel manufacturing companies in the United States. During law school, he served as Managing Editor of the Idaho Law Review.
Ms. Baldwin:
Ms. Baldwin practices with the firm’s intellectual property litigation group. Ms. Baldwin joined W|N following completion of her work as a law clerk to the Honorable Ted Stewart at the United States District Court for the District of Utah.
Prior to law school, Ms. Baldwin was employed at Huntsman Cancer Institute, where she worked in a developmental genetics laboratory investigating bilaterality in developing embryos.
Ms. Baldwin holds a master’s degree in microbiology from Brigham Young University and a bachelor’s degree in biology, with a minor in chemistry, from the University of Utah.
So that should help. And by the way, Ms. Baldwin is not only a brainiac, but she's beautiful to boot. I note that Mr. Brennan used to be with Morrison & Foerster, and has experience in computer cases, as well as in arbitrations. Mr. Wright has similar experience in arbitrations, and I note "he has successfully coordinated enforcement efforts of international intellectual property rights throughout the European Union and Asia." So I'm thinking there will be some SUSE stuff they expect to come up.
I doubt that it can have failed to be noticed how truly gruff Judge Stewart was toward Novell lawyers at the recent status conference, compared to his treatment of SCO's, including Brent Hatch, a local boy, something our witnesses remarked on as very marked. Isn't it interesting to see how law firms think and plan and react? They don't complain. They adjust. And move forward, no matter what cards they are dealt. They have asked Judge Stewart as one possible relief to send this case to the judge handling SCO v. IBM, but as you can see, if he doesn't, they'll be ready to go forward.
Update: A reader noticed that Intellectual Property Today ranked W|N 32nd in its list of 2008 Top Patent
Firms. Of the total list of 352 law firms and individuals, W|N is the only
Utah-based firm to break the top 100, as the firm points out on its website: W|N has consistently earned recognition as one of the top intellectual property firms in the nation. The firm represents a wide array of clients in all areas of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark, copyright, unfair competition, and related litigation and licensing matters.
With some eighty attorneys, W|N specializes in practice areas including computer systems, software, e-commerce and information technology; electronics and electrical engineering; pharmaceutical, neutraceutical, chemical, biotechnology, and medical and life science technologies; physics and optics; mechanics and mechanical engineering; alternative energy; agricultural sciences; IP licensing; and complex IP litigation, interpartes conflicts and mediation and arbitration. They are patent agents for Microsoft, at least one of them, if not the one, according to PatentDocs. Here's their praise listed at Martindale. This is way more than local window dressing. They are recognized as one of the best IP firms in the country. In a perfect world, they'd all be experts in the GPL. One other thing I ought to explain: a bench trial and a jury trial are not at all the same. So you need a different style for a jury trial than for one before just a judge. Judges are not usually swayed by emotions or influenced by evidence submitted improperly. So it's a very different ballgame, on a more highly technical level, so to speak, because it's all about the law. Before a jury, we will finally get to the facts themselves, and it will be fun.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: fredex on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 11:10 PM EST |
| put all the OT stuff here. thanks! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News about my Fedora 12 Sound Problems under KDE. - Authored by: luvr on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 07:35 AM EST
- MS petitions for second look at Word XML decision - Authored by: talldad on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 07:53 AM EST
- CES - News - there is an "improved" Pixel Qi screen with Rave Reviews! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 10:21 AM EST
- Gumby creator Art Clokey dies at 89 in California - Authored by: JamesK on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 05:39 PM EST
- Microsoft's Promise not to sue - from 2000 - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 06:33 PM EST
- PJ has the seventh-best job in the world - Authored by: clemenstimpler on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 08:38 PM EST
- mathfox no longer with us? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 08:51 PM EST
- Mmebership in groklaw required for an article - Authored by: jws on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 09:25 PM EST
- Problem adding another comment to Comes exhibits article - Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 10:31 PM EST
- all major webmail services and facebook are out as of 11:30pm 01/09/2010 n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 11:43 PM EST
- US: Tax Ruling - Education/Tuition Deductions - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 10 2010 @ 02:52 AM EST
- Patent prior art problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 10 2010 @ 02:54 AM EST
- Comes exhibits 333 - 339A - Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Sunday, January 10 2010 @ 10:24 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 11:41 PM EST |
I'm half serious. Jurors react better to good-looking lawyers, and I'm not a
very good judge of which men are good-looking.
It's getting more evident that the law may have little to do with who wins this
case, when one side feels it must hire a former clerk of the judge to get a fair
hearing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 12:04 AM EST |
I warned you guys when I attended the session before the
10th circuit.
SCO has a LETHAL tap dancer for the jury. Watching him,
knowing the entire history with SCO. Having read all of the
documents I could since 2002/2003 and having been a caldera
linux user before that....
I *STILL* --wanted-- to believe this guy. He's that good.
He takes things and with sudden changes in phrases, things
come out that are technically true or somewhere near the
gray borderline of untruth but convincing and coherent
nonetheless.
---
Clocks
"Ita erat quando hic adveni."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 01:01 AM EST |
Please put a one-line summary of the error and correction in the title box for
easy scanning, e.g., error->correction or s/error/correction/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 01:03 AM EST |
Please pick your news here, mention in the Title box which News Pick you have
picked, and use HTML clicky links for everyone's convenience.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 06:26 AM EST |
This is looking less and less like the truth and litigation, and more and more
like opinion and politics.
I support Novell/MoFo for adapting to the undercurrent, but I really, really
don't believe they should have to. And it's not their fault. This is the
degree to which the US justice system stinks. It's a crock.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 06:46 AM EST |
Intellectual Property Today ranked W|N 32nd in its list of 2008 Top Patent
Firms. Of the total list of 352 law firms and individuals, W|N is the only
Utah-based firm to break the top 100.
http://www.faqs.org/patents/agn/1677[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 01:56 PM EST |
| Hordes of lawyers and all. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 04:32 PM EST |
SCO is a company that never made any money until surprisingly they got
millions from SUN that had just settled with the Monopoly, and then millions
from the Monopoly for some licenses on obsolete software versions of which they
already had or had rights to. What's more this company then attracted a fifty
million investment inspired mainly by a "backstop" from a Monopoly executive.
Now these new lawyers come on with credentials including
one as the
Monopoly's Patent Lawyer. Presumably these lawyers checked their client list
and that of their partners and found no conflicts.
It is difficult to see
how Novell lawyers might not have to attack the credibility of SCO witnesses by
pointing out their finances, ignoring code comparisons, GPL, their own operating
precedents, their NDA requirements, and their role in anti-linux FUD without
bringing up the Monopoly.
If they see no potential conflict, then they don't
plan to attack the credibility of SCO witnesses as whoring Monopoly FUDmongers.
That is the most reasonable explanation for their conduct.
Is Novell
defending with one hand tied behind their back?
~webster~
Tyrants live
their delusions.
Beware. Deal with the PIPE
Fairy and you will sell your soul.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 05:15 PM EST |
Well, I guess that means it's mostly show business, not the law. On the other
hand, does all that parol evidence before Kimball get thrown out as hearsay this
time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 05:25 PM EST |
Gross promised within a week. Been that. Did I miss anything?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mrsam on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 06:39 PM EST |
It should be interesting to see if SCOX tries to make some hay out of Ms.
Baldwin prior internship with judge Stewart.
100 quatloos on SCOX moving judge Stewart to recuse himself, as a supposed
conflict of interest, of some sorts.
400 quatloos on judge Stewart denying the motion.
10,000 quatloos on should Novell win the case, SCOX will raise this as an appeal
issue.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 11 2010 @ 02:11 AM EST |
IANAL
I don't remember that the IP lawyers for MicroSoft have the strongest record. It
seems to me that they have been batting around .500. The got TomTom to pay up.
They've lost a few patent cases and are appealing one and I'm not sure what to
think of the Novell deal, and they had a GPL kerfuffle.
I also see the potential for a conflict of interest since there is a law suit
between Novell and MicroSoft. At least this keeps them from advocating for SCO.
All-in-all probably a smart move, but I've fallen for far less sensible schemes.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
