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 Re APPLE INC. - 2022-05-26
    • Another Volkswagon factors mandamus granting transfer out of WDTX to NDCAL.
    • Patent owner agreed that the references disclosed each of the claimed limitations, challenging, rather, the Board's proposed motivation to combine ("[T]he Board credited ABF’s expert testimony that P. pastoris yeast was known to “produce high yields of heterologous protein [e.g., bacterial protein] and, thus, reduce industrial costs—an important factor in producing phytases for livestock feed” on an industrial level. Final Written Decision, at 128. The Board found this to be “persuasive evidence setting forth reasons why [a] skilled artisan would have been motivated to express an E. coli appA [enzyme] in a fungal cell.”"). Reviewing the evidence, CAFC affirms the Board's assessment.
  • In Re GOOGLE LLC - 2022-05-23
    • Another Juniper factors mandamus transfer from EDTX to NDCAL, where CAFC basically affirms each factor in the petitioners' favor ("Under these circumstances, we conclude that the district court clearly abused its discretion, leading to a patently erroneous result, when it denied Petitioners motions to transfer to the clearly more convenient forum, the Northern District of California.").
    • The CAFC majority affirms the PTAB's obviousness determination, agreeing there was sufficient basis for a motivation to combine ("The Board also noted that Dr. Fronczak admitted it would be “catastrophic” and a “hazard” if a user failed to notice the absence of a stapler cartridge before attempting to fire the instrument. Id. Accordingly, the Board found that Intuitive sufficiently established a motivation to combine Green with Solyntjes.") and a reasonable expectation of success ("The Board found that Dr. Knodel logically and credibly opined that a POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining Green with Solyntjes" as the adjustment as a "routine modification"; "This is not indicative of a situation where the Board improperly shifted the burden of proof on the patent owner to establish non-obviousness in the first instance, as Ethicon argues. Rather, the Board weighed competing evidence and made its determination on the record as a whole."). In her dissent, Judge Newman argues that as there is "no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of the ’379 patent’s structure as a whole", the obviousness determination should be overturned ("The panel majority finds the elements of the ’379 invention in assorted prior art references, which the majority then plugs into the claims. Such judicial hindsight was negated in KSR International . . .").
    • CAFC finds that the defendant failed to preserve its claim construction challenge for appeal under 02 Micro ("a party must 'sufficiently request further construction of the relevant limitation' to 'raise an actual dispute'"; "In this case, Microsoft did not include a definition of the scope of the “automatically” requirement in its proposed jury instructions. Nor does Microsoft point to anything it said in the charging conference that raised the issue.") and likewise dismisses various related claim construction arguments. In contrast, as to a cross-appeal to amend for prejudgment interest, CAFC reverses the DCT as the jury analysis did not include interest ("Given that all the testimony and the oral jury instructions assumed a 2011 hypothetical negotiation and provided no basis for calculating prejudgment interest, it was unreasonable for the district court to conclude that the damages figure provided by the jury subsumed interest").
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.