Sunday, November 6, 2011

Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 06 (MERELY and CLEARLY)

In  Advice 05 - Those NEVER and ALWAYS Rules of Writing, I mentioned my own rule about MERELY and CLEARLY:
Never use merely or clearly more than once in every 25 pages.
I also pointed out that the purpose of a NEVER/ALWAYS rule is not so much to prevent or mandate anything, but to make the writer self-conscious whenever ne starts to violate the rule, which in turn will lead to less and more of the NEVER and ALWAYS behavior, respectively.

The main reasons I do not like words like MERELY and CLEARLY are:
  1. They allow the writer to be sloppy and lazy.  
  2. They insult the reader.
If the referenced information is so MERE, the author's previous discussion of it in comparison to other factors ought to have demonstrated its mereness.  If the referenced conclusion is so CLEAR, the author's development of the arguments ought to have persuaded us already.

An author who writes MERELY or CLEARLY, either thinks nis readers are stupid or hasn't done nis job (or hopes they are because ne hasn't).

Another reason I dislike such words is that
3.  They are used as code for "I am a member of the club." 
The lawyer's club, in this case, with no disrespect meant to the beautiful dormitories at the University of Michigan.  They are words that ought to be on a law school bingo card.
See if you are unfamiliar with the concept. (Unfortunately that site does not have a lawschool version yet.) Other candidates for the bingo card are paradigm, cabined, conversation, any word formed by combining where or there with a preposition (therefrom, whereby, and so on), and just about anything in Latin (the one I dislike the most is vel non). Want to add to the list? Please write a comment!

When I read or hear those clubby bingo words, I immediately look for other signs of a failure to think things through, to  marshal the facts carefully, or to structure the argument convincingly, and I almost always find them.

Last, but maybe first,
4. or 1.  Using "merely" or "clearly" violates my ALMOST NEVER/ALMOST ALWAYS rule:  Use adjectives and adverbs sparingly.  Instead, color your writing with the nouns and verbs.
Another post, amplifying my reasons to favor  nouns and verbs over adjectives and adverbs is coming soon.
typo in link corrected 11-14-2012

Saturday, August 20, 2011

Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 05 (NEVER and ALWAYS)

What about all those rules that begin NEVER or ALWAYS?

For example, my own invention is "NEVER use 'clearly' or 'merely' more than once in ever 25 pages."

What does that rule do? It probably does NOT make you count how many pages between your first and second use of MERELY. But it probably DOES make you self-conscious every time you write either of those words. And that is the reason for NEVER and ALWAYS rules. They lie in wait, pouncing on you when you violate them. Maybe you can convince yourself that violating them is OK this once. I manage to do that, from time to time. But every time you read the violating text, your inner voice will say "Really? You just HAD to do that? You couldn't find a way around it?" And sometimes you, or I, reply, "Silence! Yes, violating the rule this once was brilliant. But I won't do it again, I promise. Or anyway, not this year."

By the way, for more on merely/clearly, see MERELY/CLEARLY.

A friend (OK, Terry Kearny, then at Fish & Neave, now at Latham Watkins) once told me he'd been taught NEVER to use Moreover or Furthermore. I use them, but again, I cannot do so without remembering Terry. He, and his teachers, were correct about these words. I appreciate that often they are used because the author has not organized the presentation with enough care, or has not figured out how to marshal those 'more' facts in the most persuasive way.

Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 04 (NUMBERS and DATES)

Yes, my teachers taught me that the numbers from zero to twenty should ALWAYS be spelled out in words. For 21 and higher, use digits.
See NEVER for how to cope with writing rules that begin NEVER or ALWAYS.
But "to spell or not to spell" is not the beginning of the story, it is the end. First, the writer must decide whether to use numbers at all.

Only Use Numbers If You Absolutely Need To

As a new associate fresh out of law school, I learned from White & Case partner David Hartfield (d. 1983) that you do not use specific numbers unless you really need that level of specificity. Hartfield explained that the reason to avoid numbers is that they are too noticeable. They catch the reader's eye. If you absolutely must convey to the reader that it was 75,608 lemons, not a lemon more nor a lemon less, OK, go ahead and state the number. But if all the reader needs to know is 'thousands and thousands of lemons,' it's an unnecessary distraction to write 75,608. Hartfield convinced me. And ever since, I consider the unnecessary inclusion of precise numbers to be as much a sin as the unjustifiable failure to provide precise numbers.

Dates are another kind of number you should strive to omit. It is rare that the month, day and year really matter. For example, consider an event that happened on April 9, 1923. If four related events occurred on April 8 (aka the day before), April 10 (aka the day after), April 16 (aka exactly a week later), and on Mother's Day 1924 (aka a little over a year later), then perhaps using the precise dates is the easiest and fastest way to communicate the information. If, however, there are no related events, and all that matters is that something happened between the two world wars or during the Roaring Twenties, then we do not need to know 1923, let alone April, and we certainly don't need to know 9.

Lawyers and judges often use exact dates in briefs and opinions when they don't need to. The year may be relevant but sometimes even it can be omitted. Relative time is often what matters: did the next thing happen before the week was out? Or in less than a year? Or had more than two decades elapsed? To express the temporal relationship between what began in January and was completed in May, you could write "X happened and some months later Y happened" rather than naming the months. Of course, if the story turns on the cold weather getting warmer or the long nights becoming shorter, then specifying January and May may be helpful. But maybe not. Good writing means thinking about everything you ask the reader to read: every word, every number, every date.

Use Tables for Chronologies

When I teach, I use my own materials and I edit just about everything, including descriptions of the sequence of events in R&D, the PTO or the courts. I revise chronologies for several reasons. First, the court may jump around rather than time-ordering the facts. Usually that slows down the reader more than it helps. Second, judges write paragraphs. I prefer tables for things like chronologies: Dates go in the left column and events in the right. Time marches down the page. Events can be described in phrases rather than sentences. Extra columns can be added for, say, the actor or, in a chronology of litigation rulings, the winner.

Yes, many intelligent people find tables daunting. But people interested in patent law are usually visual thinkers who process information in tabular form quickly. We make connections faster and we find things jumping off the page more readily from a compact table than from pages of narrative. Which do you like better: the chronologies in my edited versions of KSR v. TELEFLEX or Sanofi v. Apotex or in the originals, 550 US 398 (2007) and 550 F.3d 1075 (Fed. Cir. 2008)?

Rev. 3/7,8/15

Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 03 (PARAGRAPHS)

Item 1 of my Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 01, referred to PARAGRAPHS without much explanation. That was for two reasons. First, the basis of the post was a message to a young scholar to whom I had previously written extensively on the subject of paragraphing.  Second, I assumed that readers of this blog would know what a paragraph should be, even if they didn't always apply that knowledge to their own legal writing.

Here, for completeness, is a somewhat revised version of what I had written to that student back when I first gave nerfeedback on nis writing.

1. A paragraph should have one central idea, just one, and that idea should be new to someone reading your paper from the first word to the last. That is how I read. I call people like me "linear readers". We do not skip around and we do not do word search. We place ourselves in the author's hands, trusting ner to have thought through the subject so that it is presented in the best possible way. We do, however, skim -- especially if we begin to feel that our trust is misplaced -- and that is precisely the reason you, as an author, need to use paragraphs properly.

2. If you find that your paragraph has two ideas, break up that paragraph.

Wait, you say. What about a summary or an introductory paragraph? OK. Such paragraphs may list a series of ideas, but then the central idea of the paragraph is to summarize or introduce. The substantive content in the list is not the paragraph's central idea. I should add that I am not a fan of summary or introductory paragraphs with lists. As a linear skimmer, I prefer a table of contents, aka outline, at the top of the article, so that I can see the ideas; in the body of the article, I prefer headings. I think a table of contents and headings are also helpful for non-linear readers, especially word-searchers. But for now, if the one-idea-rule troubles you, please read item 2 to mean "other than an introductory or summary paragraph."

3. If you find that a paragraph repeats an idea that you presented earlier, incorporate whatever is worth saying into the earlier paragraph, or revise what you say in the later paragraph so that it does not seem redundant to the linear reader. And yes, this is harder than it sounds. It takes some deep thinking. You will have to ask yourself why you did not include these ideas earlier, and why you want to have them at this later point. Maybe you will have to do some serious restructuring. Do it. And of course, use the TALK METHOD to decide what you want to say, that is, to WRITE.

4. Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence. My high school English teachers said the topic sentence did not necessarily have to be first; it could be in the middle of the paragraph or even at the end. That may be fine for fiction, but in legal writing, where your serious readers will likely be linear skimmers, never put the topic sentence anywhere but at the beginning.
If you can point to a good paragraph in a law review article that violates this rule, please tell me, and give me the text of that paragraph so I can form my own opinion.
5. Avoid long paragraphs. (See items 1 and 2 above to understand how easy that is when you are writing well.) In law review article format, a page should have 2 or 3 paragraphs. I count paragraphs by where they start. A carryover paragraph does not count as the first paragraph of that page. It is zero.
(See the Advice post about NUMBERS for the reason I chose to write 2 or 3 as numerals in the first sentence of item 5, but then wrote zero as a word zero in the last sentence.  See the Advice post concerning rules for writing that begin "Never" or "Always" for my views about the value of those rules.)
A page without any break, that is, one that has a paragraph that began on a previous page and ends on a subsequent one, is never acceptable. A page with a carryover and then only one new paragraph needs is not, either. More than three paragraphs on a page probably (though not always) means your writing is choppy and you are not synthesizing enough. If you have a good reason for writing short paragraphs or your paragraphs are actually bullet points, that may be fine. Maybe.
After you have a first draft, check every page and paragraph to make sure they meet these requirements. Soon, your paragraphs will naturally have the right length, and each one will be unified and will introduce a new idea, if not in your first draft, then in your second or third.

[last rev 9/12/11 - rjm]

Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 02

Some Background to My Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 01

When I read most law review articles, I wonder if the authors subconsciously believe
  • that the truth is not important,
  • that good organization of the writing is something nobody wants, and
  • that thinking the ideas through thoroughly is not necessary.
That certainly seems to explain the results.  People who are highly intelligent and accomplished are content, even proud, of their legal scholarship despite its poor quality.

These authors think that it is enough to set forth an interesting new idea, no matter whether half-baked or based on misunderstanding.  They assume that nobody will jump down their throats if they make a mistake.  And of course they know that there is little danger that a student law review editor will know enough to recognize mistakes.  (More peer review would help, provided the peers were practitioners with excellent writing skills.  Peer review by other legal academics will not necessarily do very much, for the reasons set forth below.)

Legal academics may have accurately gauged their readership.  Few people read law review articles word for word. Most, whether other scholars, litigators or judges, word search for something specific and read no further.  But for hiring and promotion, someone may read from page one to the end.  For that reader, substandard work could be a problem for the author.

But legal academics, especially younger ones, are hampered by the people to whom they go for help: their own law professors.

Unfortunately, law professors may not have had adequate training in good writing.  Some may have had excellent legal writing courses as 1Ls, wonderful high school English teachers, or a college professor who taught them to write.  But my observation is that most were not so lucky.

In addition, legal academics rarely have the opportunity to learn good legal writing from a great practicing lawyer. Usually their own law practice has been limited to a couple of years in a large firm. Working on research  memos and document production does not make for excellence in writing.  Even a judicial clerkship may not be the best preparation, especially if the former clerk does not view scholarship as requiring the same high standards as nis judge expected .   Then, too, a judicial opinion can borrow from the parties' briefs and has an inherent organization:  there is a question in the motion or appeal that must be answered.  A law review article author must develop nis own structure to present nis new idea in the most persuasive and compelling way.

The best writing training I received was when I wrote drafts of briefs for top litigators who demanded the highest standards.  This group included Eric Woglom, Ken Herman, Bob Morgan, and David J. Lee, all partners at Fish & Neave in the 1980s, and earlier, David Hartfield at White & Case in the 1970s. The other major source of my confidence about writing comes from what I learned from my husband, Phil Bucksbaum, who in turn learned from his Ph.D. adviser, Eugene Commins, whose father, Saxe Commins, had been an editor for such famous writers as Eugene O'Neill and William Faulkner.  Saxe taught Gene taught Phil, and I have always taken Phil's advice to heart.  I know of few academic authors who were as lucky as I in their writing mentors.

Of course, I have also always been a serious reader.  When I read, I hear.  No, I don't read audiobooks.  I mean that when I see words on a page or a screen, they somehow come through my ears rather than my eyes.  I find that people who write poorly do not hear their own writing.  Once they train themselves to do that, their writing improves.  See an upcoming post on the TALK METHOD for good writing, too, because that uses what we instinctively do when we speak to make our writing better.

A law professor given a draft of a student paper or article may try to catch the basic idea, but is not likely to see nis role as instructing on structure, paragraphing, and other basic aspects of writing.  Law professors may also lack the time, if not the inclination, to train  young scholars to write right.  True, it is a very time-consuming undertaking.

That is why I have started this series, Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar.  Now, when someone asks me for comments, at least some of my reply can be in links.
8/20/11 rjm
rev 11/6/11

Advice to a Young Would-Be Patent Law Scholar - 01

A while ago a law student asked me to look over a draft law review article ne had written.  Nis draft was about 50 pages.  My comments were about 25 pages.  I liked ner very much or I wouldn't have bothered.  Ne was intelligent and eager to do things to the best of nis substantial ability.

More recently, ne asked me to look at another paper.  I wasn't able to spend another forty-odd hours writing comments, so I just sent ner these reminders:

1. Remember what a paragraph is, and remember to police yourself on your paragraphing, from the first draft on, in EVERY revision!

2. Remember to use words accurately.  (I write UWA in the margins of many a student exam, and think it regularly as I read novels and news articles.)  If you can't think of the right word, NEVER EVER write down something you know is not quite right.  Instead, ALWAYS write _____. That will remind you to find the right word before you are done.

3. Remember never to write anything you're not 100% sure of.  If you have any doubt, check it out! If you can't manage to wrestle the thing to the ground, either omit it, change what you say about it, or come up with a hedge.

4. Have an outline VISIBLE at the top of your paper, from the very first draft.  Read it every time you do a revision, and revise it every time you change a heading in your paper. (A good paper, by the way, should have at least one heading every two pages in standard format.  This makes it skimmable for the reader, and reminds the writer what nis purpose is.)   Keep the outline as
current as your thinking.

5. TALK FIRST, write second.  If you can't talk what you want to say, you will write it poorly.  You will not have thought it through.  If you can't think without writing (I sometimes have this problem), write until you think you know what you want to say. Do this in SMALL sections, not the whole paper.  Then TALK IT.  Then throw out what you wrote before you talked it out, and write what you talked.  (Stay tuned for more about the TALK METHOD in a future posting.)

6. The theory behind instructions 1 through 5 is that an article on patent law should be written with the same scrupulous honesty and thoroughness as a brief for a patent savvy judge in a lawsuit where opposing counsel has outstanding depth and breadth of experience in patent
law.  That is, imagine that your article will be read by a  lawyer who will find your every error and weakness,  one who has done prosecution, counseling, pre-trial, trial, and appellate work, and has an encyclopedic memory of  40 years of experience, as well as everything ne learned from nis mentors, and who, you can be sure, will use your errors and omissions to win nis case.

Too many people write articles as if the truth is not important.  As if a clear organization to the writing is something nobody would miss.   As if thinking thoroughly is not a requirement.   These authors think that it is enough to set forth an interesting new idea, no matter whether half-baked or based on misunderstanding.  They assume that nobody will jump down their throats if they make a mistake.  (And they know that there is little danger that student law review editors will know enough to recognize mistakes.)  These authors may have accurately gauged their readership.  Few people read law review articles word for word; most, whether other scholars, litigators or judges, word search for something specific and read no further.  But for hiring and promotion, someone may read from page one to the end and might just notice the poor quality work.

Unfortunately, too, many academic authors have not themselves had much training by top litigators or legal writers who demand the highest standards.  When a young scholar gives them a draft, they may try to catch the basic idea, but not otherwise give ner instructive comments. Often, their own law practice has been limited to a couple of years in a large firm. Working on research  memos and document production is not the best training for becoming an excellent writer.  Even a judicial clerkship may not be the best preparation, especially if the former clerk does not view scholarship as requiring the same high standards as judicial writing.  Law professors may also lack the time, if not the inclination, to train  young scholars to write right.  It is a time-consuming undertaking.

If, however, you learn to hold yourself to a high standard, you will soar to the top.  Your readers, whether practitioners or academics, will notice the difference between you and the rest of the pack.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

The Standard Application Metric (SAM) - some more data - PTO Reform Ideas 04

Here is a restatement and update of data included in PTO Reform Ideas 03, March 07, 2011.
It is in table form, and includes Claims, Figures and Sheets data for the following patent ranges:
3,999,000 to 3,999,999 ( 1000 issued)
6,000,000 to 6,019,999 (19938 issued)
   (12/1999 to 02/2000)
6,999,000 to 6,999,999 (  990 issued)

Friday, April 15, 2011

Microsoft v i4i - Tables of Contents of ALL the Briefs

To get a quick handle on ALL the briefs in 10-290, Microsoft v. i4i, since the grant of certiorari, from Microsoft's Opening Merits Briefs to Microsoft's Reply Brief, and all the amicus briefs in between, please see my pdf compendium of all the coversheets and tables of contents of all the briefs. I put in bookmarks for each brief's coversheet, but if you don't want to open the whole pdf and just want to see a list of all the briefs, click here for a table of contents to the tables of contents.

For an alphabetical list of all the entities represented in briefs in support of Microsoft, see my 2/11/11 post.

The briefs in support of neither party came from
  1. AIPLA
  2. The DC Bar Association
  3. IBM
  4. Federation Internationale,  and
  5. the owner of this very blog, Roberta J. Morris, Esq., Ph.D. (pdf, or TOC only.)
For a list (by brief) of all the entities represented in briefs in support of i4i, see i4i's court papers site.

Note: This post is an update of my 2/10/11 post, which only included Microsoft's opening briefs and the briefs in support of 

Monday, March 7, 2011

Patent Fees and Counts and the Standard Application Metric - PTO Reform Ideas 03

Both the fee structure and the examiner count system should be based, not on the unit of the filed application, but instead on a metric that compares the actual application to a standard application.   The comparison would be based on such parameters as numbers of:  specification columns in standard format, figures and reference characters in the figures, independent and total claims, and IDS references and the sum of the individual references' pages (or word counts, figures, etc.). 

This way fees and counts would be appropriately tailored to the complexity of the task of examination.  Today's one size fits all system prevents such tailoring.  (Excess claim and page fees do not address complexity adequately and may not affect the count system at all.)

Patent prosecution professionals know that the more complex the case the more time is needed to do a proper job, and their fees, whether by the hour or by prearrangement, reflect this.  R&D expenditures are also related to the complexity of the technology, as are the pay scales in different fields.  Likewise, revenues from commercialization are often proportional to complexity because the price per unit, the margins and the volume of sales are often higher for more complicated and sophisticated technology.

Why do PTO fees and examiner counts essentially ignore complexity?  Answer:  "Because they always have."  That answer is not good enough any more.

Employing a standard-application metric (SAM) for the count system and fee structure acknowledges the reality that all applications are NOT created equal.  Examiners can be given twice the time to examine an application that is twice as complex.  This means that they will have enough time to understand complex technology, read a lengthy specification, consider voluminous information disclosures, and examine numerous, highly nuanced claims.  The system will also encourage applicants interested in cheaper and faster examination to be more succinct and direct.

Who will devise this metric?  Answer:  The PTO.  Director Kapos, and management, and the examining corps, all know what the measurables of patent applications are and how those measurables affect examination time.   

The public, too, can consider the definition of the standard application.  Publicly available databases and the PTO's $200 DVD of patent statistics are helpful.  For example, the CLAIMS.TXT data on the DVD permits calculation of the median, mid 50%ile and average for three aspects of complexity of issued patents:  numbers of claims, figures and drawing sheets.   Unfortunately, the number of specification columns and IDS references -- useful information for our SAM -- are not as easily found, nor are data for applications as opposed to issued patents.  That information can be compiled without too much difficulty, however.

To begin working toward the SAM solution, I have looked at some numbers.  For simplicity and speed,* I have segregated out two groups of ~1000 patents from the DVD, representing past and current complexity levels:
     For the 1000 patents numbered 3,999,000 to 3,999,999, issued in 1976:
          Claims: median 8, mid50 4 to 12, average 9.2,
          Figures: median 5, mid50 3 to 9, average 6.9, and
          Drawing Sheets: median 2, mid50 1 to 3, average 2.8.
     For the 990 patents numbered 6,999,000 to 6,999,999 (ten patents were withdrawn prior to issuance), issued about thirty years later in 2006:
          Claims:  median 15, mid50 9 to 21, average 19.6,
          Figures:  median 8, mid50 5 to 13, average 13.3, and
          Drawing Sheets:  median 6, mid50 4 to 9, average 9.5.

It is undeniable that serious thought and hard work will be needed to determine
     (1) the parameters to use,
     (2) the standard application values,
     (3) the weights to apply to those parameters, and
     (4) the structure -- linear?  step function with how many steps? -- by which to calculate the fees and counts for actual applications compared to the standard.
Consideration should also be given to how often the definition of the standard application should be adjusted.  It might be when the median actual application goes above 1.5 SAMs, for example.

The PTO can do this.  And should.  And the time to do it -- while Microsoft v. i4i is pending before the Supreme Court, patent reform legislation is before Congress, and public attention is being given to the quality of examination and in particular to the problem of inadequate examination time and resources -- is now.

* I used batches of 1000 patent numbers rather than a larger or more random sample.  Consecutive patents, all issued on the same date or a week apart, may all have been granted by a small subset of examiners or art units and thus may not necessarily represent the whole.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Microsoft v i4i - List of Amicus Filers

List of Entities Filing Amicus Briefs TO DATE  (in order of docketing, within designations as supporting
petitioner or neither party; briefs by respondent i4i and in support of respondent will be added when filed)

For a combined pdf with all the cover sheets and tables of contents of all the briefs, including the parties' briefs, see For the complete individual briefs, see

Key (in case you re-sort the list alphatically)
  *MS = supporting Microsoft (per cover of brief; may also say supporting reversal or supporting vacation or nothing, but filing date/contents indicate support of Microsoft)
  *NP = supporting Neither Party (per cover of brief)


Hollaar, Prof. Lee A., Pro Se *MS
Synerx Pharma, LLC *MS
Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF") *MS
Public Knowledge (with EFF) *MS
Apache Software Foundation (with EFF) *MS
Public Patent Foundation *MS
Internet Retailers *MS
Security Industry and Financial Markets Association ("Sec Ind")  *MS
The Clearing House Association (with Sec Ind) *MS
EMC Corporation *MS
Apotex, Inc. *MS
CTIA - The Wireless Association *MS
Business Software Alliance *MS
Hercules Open-Source Project *MS
Apple Inc ("Apple") *MS
Intel Corporation (with Apple) *MS
Google Inc. ("Google") *MS
Verizon Communications Inc. (with Google) *MS
Consumer Electronics Association (with Google) *MS
Comcast Corp. (with Google) *MS
Dell Computer Corp. (with Google) *MS
Hewlett-Packard Co. (with Google) *MS
HTC Corp. (with Google) *MS
Intuit Inc. (with Google) *MS
L-3 Communications Corp. (with Google) *MS
LinkedIn Corp. (with Google) *MS
Lockheed Martin Corp. (with Google) *MS
Mastercard Worldwide (with Google) *MS
The New York Times Company (with Google) *MS
Rackspace Hosting Inc (with Google) *MS
Red Hat, Inc. (with Google) *MS
Shutterfly, Inc. (with Google) *MS
Software & Information Industry Association (with Google) *MS
Time Warner Inc. (with Google) *MS
Walmart Stores, Inc. (with Google) *MS
Zynga Inc. (with Google) *MS
SAP America, Inc. ("SAP") *MS
Acushnet Company (with SAP) *MS
Facebook, Inc. (with SAP) *MS
General Motors LLC (with SAP) *MS
Pregis Corporation (with SAP) *MS
Symantec Corporation (with SAP) *MS
Terex Corporation (with SAP) *MS
Yahoo! Inc. (with SAP) *MS
Computer & Communications Industry Association *MS
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. *MS
Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") *MS
eBay Inc. (with Cisco) *MS
Netflix Inc. (with Cisco) *MS
Office Depot, Inc. (with Cisco) *MS
Toyota Motor Corporation (with Cisco) *MS
Trimble Navigation Limited (with Cisco) *MS
37 Law, Business and Economics Professors *MS
Timex Group USA, Inc. ("Timex") *MS
Macdermid, Inc. (with Timex) *MS
Gem Manufacturing, Inc. (with Timex) *MS
Perfect 10 Antenna Company, Inc. (with Timex) *MS
Carson Optical, Inc. (with Timex) *MS

American Intellectual Property Association *NP
Association of the District of Columbia Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section *NP
International Business Machines Corporation *NP
Federation Internationale Des Conseils en Propriete Industrielle *NP
Morris, Roberta J. Pro Se *NP

Microsoft v. i4i - Quick Guide to all the Briefs - Everyone's Table of Contents

If, like me, you would like a quick guide to the basic ideas of all the briefs in Microsoft v. i4i (Docket No. 10-290) filed since the petition for certiorari was granted, you may find helpful my composite pdf of each cover page and Table of Contents (TOCs).  The pdf is bookmarked for each filer.  The table of contents to that combined TOCs file is also listed below.

If anything intrigues you in the combined TOCs (for example, my Thought Experiment on the reversal rate for invalidity, see my brief, actual/pdf page 24/36), you can find the complete pdfs of all the briefs on i4i's court papers page.

If you only have time to read one brief in full, I certainly recommend mine (pdf).   That it has some different and refreshing ideas should be apparent from its Table of Contents (separately available at docx = brief pdf pages 2-3).

The combined TOC file will grow to include covers and TOCs from i4i's Opposition brief, the amicus briefs in support of i4i, and Microsoft's Reply, as they become available.

Happy reading.

PS Please let me know of any errors or omissions in the combined TOCs.

Cover Pages and Tables of Contents of
All Briefs Filed in Microsoft v. i4i
United States Supreme Court
Oral Argument Set for 4/18/2011

Note:  The individual brief cover/Tocs are bookmarked in the combined pdf file.
Within each amicus category, briefs are listed in order of docketing. 

      1     Merits Brief of Petitioner Microsoft
                  Amicus Briefs in Support of Petitioner
      4              Prof. Lee Hollaar
      7              Synerx
      9              EFF+2
    12              Pub.Pat.Fdn
    14              Internet Retailers
    17              SecInd&FinMkts+1
    21              EMC
    24              Apotex
    27              CTIA
    29              Bus.Software
    31              Hercules Open-Source
    33              Apple+Intel
    36              Google+19
    39              SAP+7
    42              Computer&CommIndAss’n
    45              Teva
    48              Cisco+5
    51              37 Profs
    54              Timex+4
                Amicus Briefs in Support of Neither Party
    58              AIPLA
    61              DC Bar
    63              IBM
    66              Fed.Internationale
    69              Roberta J Morris
rjm 2/10/2011 rev 0