decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

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.


Novell Adds 4 Local Lawyers to the Trial Team - Updated | 102 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: fredex on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 11:10 PM EST
put all the OT stuff here. thanks!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Are the guys good-looking, too?
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

[ Reply to This | # ]

Be Careful. Tap Dancing is Lethal
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

"Ita erat quando hic adveni."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
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 | # ]

News Picks Thread
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 | # ]

    Novell Adds 4 Local Lawyers to the Trial Team
    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 | # ]

    Workman Nydegger is a, if not THE Microsoft (Patent) Agent
    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.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Time for Maureen to write another boo-hoo article
    Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 01:56 PM EST
    Hordes of lawyers and all.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Paintballs at Dawn
    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?


    Tyrants live their delusions. Beware. Deal with the PIPE Fairy and you will sell your soul.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    "Different style for a jury trial"
    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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Nothing from Delaware?
    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 | # ]

    Ms. Baldwin and judge Stewart
    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

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Am I biased?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 11 2010 @ 02:11 AM EST
    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 | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )