Michael Kwun

In a Hertz bankruptcy case, the S Ct denied cert after the SG so recommended. Had cert been granted, I would have tried to convince @klonick.bsky.social to file an amicus brief, addressing her special (albeit non-bankruptcy) insights into the company. www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docke...

you can't let them pull too many stunts—and I mean that in the same sense as the SNL skit line that you can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor

"...with diamonds"

turnabout is fair play

Content Warning The story of how TikTok changed everything you see online.

when I heard @klonick.bsky.social say "don't get me saying the F word again" during a @radiolab.bsky.social pod about content moderation, I thought maybe she meant "Facebook" but it turned out just to be the usual suspect F word

if the shutdown isn't resolved, the government's stockpile of em dashes will run out by Halloween

I think you should schedule a meeting at 230 about the tax ramifications of structured settlements in personal injury lawsuits (26 U.S.C. § 130)

soon they will ask for your ranked prefs for firms you want to interview with as part of your law school application

The Federal Circuit reversed the patent infringement infringement findings... but only for one defendant. The defendant with the waiver problem loses on the patent claims, and indeed may need to pay fees for those claims.

www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-ord...

I thought I was looking at a depiction of intestines. maybe I am?

a man is flying through the air in front of a helicopter while wearing a black cape . Alt: Neo dodging bullets in The Matrix

well done, well done

every time I see the banner pic for this video (and I've seen it more than perhaps you'd guess, because I sang this with a choir last year), I think to myself that it makes Maurice White look like Worf

buy it!

on a different topic... will you be teaching In re Brunetti this year? a 2-1 precedential decision about failure to function... seems tailor made for you!

stop your foolin' around
time you straighten right out
better think of your future
else you'll wind up in jail

Rudy—a message to you, Rudy—a message to you

BBSes via 300 baud modem in the 1980s and Confer forums on a mainframe running Michigan Terminal System in the 1980s/1990s

Here's another Trump admin filing. It has no table of authorities, and no placeholder for one. (It's over five pages long, so under S Ct R 34.2 a TOA was required.)

www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24...

3rd instar anise caterpillar, curled in a ball; close-up in fennel, shallow depth of field

anise swallowtail caterpillar (third instar) cos-playing as ouroboros

in Carville and Matalin, who is PB and who is pickles?

how some felt when Harvard filed suit

I don't know that we can assume that the brief was written more quickly and cheaply than it could have been otherwise.

but I do think saying AI poorly used "brought nothing to the table" is kind of meaningless. if kids TP a tree, that doesn't mean TP is useless.

whatever the practice might be elsewhere, in the Federal Circuit there is a published opinion addressing this point

bsky.app/profile/mkwu...

the Federal Circuit has a published opinion saying, "We hold that incorporation of co-party briefing... cannot be used to exceed word count." Microsoft v. DataTern, Inc., 755 F.3d 899, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

because in the two defendants would then effectively get twice the space provided to the plaintiff in the briefing. that, plus there was a court order that directed them not to do that, and lawyers are supposed to follow court orders.

if you need more words, you're supposed to seek leave to exceed the word limit

address, but not adequately: "For example, Marquis spent over twenty pages addressing patent infringement covering three patents and multiple disputed claim terms, while Kartri spent less than one page on all patent issues...."

"We struck the... briefs and ordered Appellants to file corrected... briefs.... We explained 'incorporation cannot be used to exceed word count' and '[t]he incorporated material counts against the litigants’ word count in exactly the same manner as if it had been expressly included in the brief.'"

"Kartri... and Marquis... filed noncompliant briefs that divided the issues on appeal and attempted to incorporate by reference each other’s briefs... Kartri’s brief focused on the trademark and trade dress issues, while Marquis’s brief concentrated on the patent... issues."

coordinating is fine. but the way to do that is to file a single brief (subject to the word count limit) addressing all issues in the appeal. (or, less sensibly, to file separate briefs, but to keep under the word count when the two briefs are considered together.)

either they attempt to show cause why they shouldn't be sanctioned (thus admitting they violated the spirit of the order striking their original briefs) or they each have to waive half the appeal

I read the order as basically directing the defendants each to own up to having tried to get around the order striking their original briefs.