Contact - Sessions
James Skelley | Technology Lawyer
Sessions are online meetups for discussing recent legal news, general education, and sharing various of James' research. The next scheduled session is:

You can find a complete listing of upcoming sessions and request to join HERE.
(Informal 1-2 line summaries, which certainly should not be relied upon for legal or other research purposes)
    • In this precedential decision (regarding various of Valve Corporation's video games), CAFC considers a motion to strike portions of an expert report (as it applied the plain meaning of a term rather than the agreed construction) and a motion for summary judgment on noninfringement. Regarding the motion to strike, "[t]here is no dispute that Mr. Friedman failed to address the construction of the CE limitation in his report" (Dr. Freeman?) and so CAFC affirms as "the grant of a motion to strike expert testimony is not improper when such testimony is based on a claim construction that is materially different from the construction adopted by the parties and the court . . . When the court has adopted a construction that the parties requested and agreed upon, any expert theory that does not rely upon that agreed-upon construction is suspect." Regarding the motion for summary judgment, "[t]he district court granted Valve’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement because it found that Treehouse failed to proffer admissible evidence that the CE limitation is met by the accused products. We agree that, in the absence of Mr. Friedman’s testimony, Treehouse has not presented evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact regarding infringement."
    • In this nonprecedential decision, CAFC finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal as there was no final decision below ("Typically, we only have jurisdiction over a “final decision of a district court” . . . “For a ruling to be final, it must end the litigation on the merits and the judge must clearly declare his intention in this respect.” . . . We discern no such intent by the district court here").
    • CAFC denies a petition to withdraw an ex parte reexam premised upon consolidation with a DCT case (35 U.S.C. § 325(d)), finding the petition to be premature ("Mandamus relief is unavailable because a post-final decision appeal is an adequate remedy by which Sound View may seek to obtain relief based on its § 325(d) challenge . . . Sound View’s reliance on our decision in Vivint does not change that calculus. In that case, we held, on direct appeal after a final decision, that the PTO had arbitrarily and capriciously applied § 325(d) when it granted the requester’s nearly identical request for ex parte reexamination based on the same arguments raised in its previous IPR petition that was denied based on the requester’s abusive filing practices. 14 F.4th at 1354. Here, the PTO’s decision to allow the reexamination to proceed was a case specific exercise of discretion that does not create the same kind of clear, arbitrary departure from prior agency decisions that was at issue in Vivint.")
    • Another writ to transfer out of W.Tx., but CAFC denies this one: "We see no clear abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of transfer. The district court explained that the Western District of Texas, a district in which Cloudflare itself stated that its employees helped research, design, develop, implement, test, and market the accused products, had a localized interest and would be convenient for potential sources of proof and party witnesses."
    • In 2011 a tornado hit my hometown in Joplin, MO. The US Army Corps contracted the plaintiff to clear away the tornado debris, but later terminated the contract for convenience under 48 C.F.R. § 52.249-2. The contractor sought post-termination payments, but after having trouble with some deadlines, including one it missed because "its principal officer was in the hospital and could not assist in document review," the Claims Court ultimately dismissed the case with prejudice. Here, CAFC vacates, finding "that the Claims Court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without finding that the noncompliance was willful or in bad faith and without further inquiry into the asserted medical reasons . . . we have long held that dismissal as a discovery sanction “is authorized only when the failure to comply with [a] court order is due to willfulness or bad faith and not from the inability to comply with the order.”" However, CAFC acknowledged that they "do not preclude the Claims Court, on remand, from imposing a lesser sanction if appropriate or even from dismissing the case if a supported finding of willfulness or bad faith is made and other applicable standards are met."
More . . .
James Skelley is a solo practitioner based in Mountain View, California since 2015, focusing primarily upon technology transactions and intellectual property procurement. James' practice also serves as an "incubator" for new legal service technologies / methodologies and a "living example" of their application. To this end, James regularly partners with larger law firms and with his clients so as to improve the practice of intellectual property law.

  • Utility / Design / PCT Patent Prosecution
  • Open Source Diligence
  • Technology Transactions (typically as a team)
  • Litigation / Inter Partes Review Support (typically as a team)
  • James tends NOT to handle low-volume trademark work (though referrals are available)
  • USPTO - #59458 - 10/16/2006
  • California - #257829 - 12/01/2008
  • District Columbia - #1014986 - 08/05/2013
  • James is available by email, 8x8 hangout, and in-person meetups in the Valley (albeit while mindful of COVID protocols).
  • Email is typically the best way to reach James.
  • Machine Learning / Robotics
  • Cryptograpy / Cryptocurrency / Smart Contracts
  • Medical Device
  • Computational Biology (primarily modeling and proteomics)
  • Signal Processing (primarily wireless and compression)
  • Quantum Physics (primarily semiconductor) / Electromagnetics (antennae, waveguides, etc.)
  • Manufacturing / 3D Printing
  • James tends NOT to handle pure chemistry applications (though referrals are available), however James HAS handled matters involving computational proteomics, cellular modeling, and diagnostic lab protocols
LawMux Bites are (very) short, one-page summaries of various legal concepts, cases, and technologies. As informal summaries, you certainly shouldn't rely upon them as legal advice / for business use, but they can help orient you if you're new to the subject matter.