<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Petitions to Watch &#124; Conference of 2.22.08</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-22208/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-22208/</link>
	<description>The Supreme Court of the United States blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 21:56:34 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Barclay</title>
		<link>http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-22208/comment-page-1/#comment-14589</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Barclay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/petitions-to-watch-conference-of-22208/#comment-14589</guid>
		<description>For us patent types, the cert petition in In Re Seagate has been distributed for the February 22 conference.  The case is No. 07-656 and the Supreme Court caption is Convolve, Inc. v. Seagate Technology, LLC.  In that case, the Federal Circuit (en banc) followed Supreme Court precedent to make it harder to find willful infringement in a patent case; the CAFC also held that reliance on an opinion of counsel by one attorney does not automatically waive attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel.  Since the CAFC largely followed Supreme Court precedent at least as to the first issue, it is not clear why a cert petition was filed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For us patent types, the cert petition in In Re Seagate has been distributed for the February 22 conference.  The case is No. 07-656 and the Supreme Court caption is Convolve, Inc. v. Seagate Technology, LLC.  In that case, the Federal Circuit (en banc) followed Supreme Court precedent to make it harder to find willful infringement in a patent case; the CAFC also held that reliance on an opinion of counsel by one attorney does not automatically waive attorney-client privilege as to trial counsel.  Since the CAFC largely followed Supreme Court precedent at least as to the first issue, it is not clear why a cert petition was filed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.317 seconds -->
