Professor Jean Sternlight to Speak at U.C. Berkeley School of Law

Jean Sternlight is the Michael and Sonja Saltman Professor of Law and the Director of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution at the UNLV Boyd School of Law.

On Feb. 27, she will make a presentation at the U.C. Berkeley School of Law entitled "Disarming Employees? Examining Case Outcomes and Legal Representation in Employment Arbitration."

This talk is part of a conference on forced arbitration in the workplace. To learn more about the conference, visit http://bjell.weebly.com/.

Professor Sternlight is nationally and internationally recognized for her scholarship and law reform activities in the field of dispute resolution.

Patent Litigation in Nevada (Part 4)

By Marketa Trimble, Associate Professor of Law 

This blog post follows my earlier posts about patent litigation in Nevada (here, here, and here) and introduces the judges and law firms who have been instrumental in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in patent cases that were filed in 2010-2013.

Figure 1 shows the judges of the District Court who were assigned patent cases filed in 2010-2013 and the number of patent cases in their dockets. Judge Gloria Maria Navarro (whose chambers are in Las Vegas) is at the top of the chart; since her appointment in 2010 her caseload has included 33 patent cases that were filed in 2010-2013. Judge Robert Clive Jones (appointed in 2003, chambers in Reno) and Judge Miranda Mai Du (appointed in 2012, chambers in Reno) had the second-largest patent caseloads; each of their dockets included 25 patent cases that were filed in 2010-2013. Judges Navarro, Jones and Du, and Judge Philip M. Pro (appointed in 1987, chambers in Las Vegas) have been the designated Patent Pilot Program judges for the District Court since the Court joined the Program in 2011.

The Patent Pilot Program is designed to enhance the patent law expertise of judges participating in the Program by allowing them to hear more patent cases than they would otherwise hear without the Program. District Court judges who have not been designated Program judges may (but need not) decline to hear patent cases that have been assigned to them (cases are assigned to judges randomly); declined patent cases are then randomly assigned to the Program judges. The District Court is one of only 14 U.S. district courts that have been selected to participate in the Program; the courts selected include the major patent litigation federal district courts, such as the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas, the Central District of California, and the Northern District of California.

Figure 2 shows the law firms that represented clients in patent cases that were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada in 2010-2013; there were 167 different law firms that represented clients in the 133 patent cases that were filed in the District Court during that period. For visualization purposes Figure 2 includes data only for the 29 firms that represented clients in four or more cases during the period.

Firms that most often represented clients in patent cases filed in Nevada in 2010-2013 were, not surprisingly, law firms with offices in Nevada. The top five firms all had Nevada offices: Lewis and Roca LLP (since September 1, 2013, Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP; offices in Las Vegas and Reno), Watson Rounds (Las Vegas and Reno), McDonald Carano Wilson LLP (Las Vegas and Reno), Lionel Sawyer & Collins (Las Vegas, Reno, and Carson City), and Gordon Silver (Las Vegas and Reno). Of the law firms without offices in Nevada, the firms that most often represented clients in patent cases were Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP; Kenyon and Kenyon LLP; Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP; and Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP.

The charts in this blog post were prepared based on data available in the Lex Machina database as of January 2014. 

Professor Trimble welcomes any citing or quoting of this blog post or reposting of the entire blog post and/or the figures; however, she requests that you cite the author and title of the blog post and include a link to this page.

Feb. 7 Boyd Briefs Now Available

The Feb. 7 edition of Boyd Briefs is now available.

This week's edition features Professor Terrill Pollman, student Katherine Frank, and alumna Sophia Salas '07.

A founding faculty member of Boyd, Professor Pollman currently teaches for the law school's legal writing program, which is one of the most highly regarded programs in the country. Her instruction has compelled countless students to become effective advocates and leaders.

After graduating with a B.A. in Psychology with honors from Temple University, Frank is now a first-year law student at Boyd. While living in Philadelphia, she volunteered at a clinic that provides mental health counseling for children facing anxieties that arise from living in an urban environment — all while running for Temple’s track and field/cross country team.

An alumna of both UNLV and Boyd, Salas manages her family recycling business, RenuOil of America, Inc. Under her oversight, the company now services more than 20 Las Vegas hotel and casinos and more than 300 local restaurants. RenuOil was recently recognized as the 2013 Recycling Company of the Year, via the Pinecone GreenUP award.

To subscribe to Boyd Briefs, visit http://law.unlv.edu/BoydBriefs.

Student Shannon Phenix Immersed in Public Interest Law

Community service wasn’t on Shannon Phenix’s to-do list in high school, but it’s certainly at the top of her list now.

“I got out of our high school community service requirement somehow. I just wasn’t interested,” said Phenix, a student at the William S. Boyd School of Law. “Then I went to a community college where we had a community service component. I ended up tutoring third-graders at a low-income elementary school, and that’s what got me hooked.”

Hooked so much, in fact, that Phenix was recently named the Public Interest Law Student of Distinction by the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada.

“I was really surprised. I didn’t expect to win the award at all,” she said. “Public interest law is basically about creating access to justice for people who can’t otherwise afford attorneys, and that’s really important to me.”

Phenix has taken advantage of practically every public interest opportunity during her time at the Boyd School of Law.

Upon matriculation, she became a charter Boyd Public Interest Fellowship recipient. The Public Interest Fellowship Program offers financial resources, mentorship, and experiential learning opportunities to students with a demonstrated record of community service and a clear commitment to public interest work after graduation from law school.

Phenix has also completed an externship in the Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada’s Domestic Violence Project, which provides a range of representation to domestic violence victims.

“I was there for a summer externship, and I loved it. It’s the people component that I’m attracted to,” Phenix said.

In March 2012, she participated in the Boyd School of Law’s first Alternative Spring Break, a program that allows students to observe the practice of law and perform community service activities outside of Las Vegas.

“It was great to get to experience the rural communities and meet with people there because I think they feel left out a lot of times. This was our opportunity to show them that we care and are interested in them,” she said.

Phenix has also participated during the Nevada legislative session in Grassroots Lobby Days, sponsored by the Nevada Women’s Lobby, the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, and other organizations. The annual event brings together hundreds of Nevadans for two days of lobby training, networking, lobbying and more so participants can raise their voices on behalf of Nevada’s women and children.

“There was a lot of conversation about policy and advocacy,” she said. “I really enjoyed it because I’d like to do something in my career where I can affect policy and really make a difference.”

For the last three years, Phenix has volunteered for Community Law Day, an event hosted by the Boyd School of Law to offer a series of free legal education classes to community members.

Throughout her time at Boyd, she has also been active in the Public Interest Law Association (PILA) student organization, having previously served as President and Vice President. This year, she is Community Service Chair for the Child Advocacy Law Association.

Last summer, Shannon received a PILA grant to work at the Clark County Public Defender’s Office. She also did her social work practicum there the previous spring, working on mitigation strategies for capital murder cases.

In the fall semester, she represented clients in the Juvenile Justice Clinic at the Boyd School of Law’s Thomas & Mack Legal Clinic.

“Clinic was really fun. I had some really interesting cases; for example, I got to work on a juvenile sex trafficking case,” Phenix said. “It was a great experience. Everyone there really cares about the juveniles.”

In her final year of a dual Juris Doctor and Master of Social Work degree, Phenix plans to continue helping members of the community after graduation.

"I am planning to clerk at the Public Defender’s Office after I graduate, and I’m hoping that might turn into something more permanent," she said. “I’ve never considered going to a firm. I came to Las Vegas to practice public interest law.”

Professor Ruben Garcia Featured in UNLV Accomplishments

Ruben J. Garcia is a Professor of Law at the William S. Boyd School of Law.

On Feb. 4, he was featured in the February edition of UNLV Accomplishments.

"Ruben Garcia last month began his two-year term as co-president of the Society of American Law Teachers, a national organization dedicated to the improvement of legal education by emphasizing the values of justice, diversity, and academic excellence," the feature reads. 

A recognized expert in the field of labor and employment law, Professor Garcia teaches Labor Law, Employment Law, Constitutional Law, and Professional Responsibility at the Boyd School of Law. He has been quoted in the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Las Vegas Review-Journal, among others, and has appeared on national and local radio and television programs.

Patent Litigation in Nevada (Part 3)

By Marketa Trimble, Associate Professor of Law

In my last blog post (here) I presented general data about patent cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In this post I will present data describing parties that were or are still involved in patent cases filed in the District Court in 2010-2013.

Because of the current nationwide interest in the “patent troll” phenomenon, which even featured in President Obama’s State of the Union Address last week (although disguised under the more general “innovation, not costly, needless litigation” theme), it is appropriate to begin an analysis of parties through the prism of this phenomenon. Patent trolls are persons or entities that own one or multiple patents and enforce their patent rights aggressively, sometimes using objectionable enforcement practices. Patent trolls are what “non-practicing entities” are often regarded as, because these entities own patents but do not manufacture any products or provide any services (other than the enforcement of patent rights). The latest term used to describe these kinds of entities is “patent-assertion entities.” In fact, no term captures well what the phenomenon represents, which remains subject to disagreements among commentators. Generally, critics accuse patent trolls of burdening “practicing” entities and the U.S. court system by filing suits against multiple defendants and enforcing patents of questionable validity. Patent troll defenders point out that trolls serve some positive functions in the patent landscape, that the U.S. patent system does not require patent owners to practice their own patents, and that the system does allow patent owners to enforce their own patents. Nevertheless, the phenomenon is a burden on the economy, and experts, industry representatives, the White House, and Congress are seeking ways to limit patent troll activity.

One way to search for patent trolls is to focus on “repeat plaintiffs” – parties that have filed multiple patent cases. For example, I looked for plaintiffs who filed patent cases in Nevada in 2010-2013 and were involved as plaintiffs in ten or more patent cases filed in any U.S. district court in 2000-2013. Based on these criteria I identified 22 plaintiffs; they filed 52 patent cases in Nevada in 2010-2013. Figure 1 shows that in 2010-2013 these repeat plaintiffs filed between 10 and 18 cases in Nevada each year, which was 50%, 33%, 31%, and 42%, respectively, of patent cases filed in Nevada in those years.

It would be a mistake to conclude that all repeat plaintiffs in Nevada are “patent trolls.” Out of the 22 different repeat plaintiffs, 16 (73%) were practicing entities that typically are not considered to be patent trolls: seven were pharmaceutical companies and nine were other practicing entities, such as Nike, Inc., Koninklijke Philips N.V., and Robert Bosch LLC. Six out of the 22 repeat plaintiffs do appear to fit some definition of patent troll – they seem to be non-practicing entities that specialize in patent enforcement. These six plaintiffs filed a total of nine lawsuits in Nevada in 2010-2013, meaning 7% of all patent cases filed in Nevada during that period.

Repeat plaintiffs are not always patent trolls, and patent trolls are not always repeat plaintiffs; new patent trolls may emerge that have not yet filed many lawsuits, and old patent trolls may have changed their names or spun off different subsidiaries. Depending on the definition of patent troll, patent trolls filed between 20 and 27 lawsuits in Nevada in 2010-2013, which is 15-20% of all patent suits filed in Nevada during that period. These percentages are substantially lower than the nationwide percentages suggested by various empirical studies; for example, according to some studies, in 2012 “patent assertion” or “non-practicing entities” filed between 50% (here) and 62% (here) of patent cases in U.S. district courts (cf. 25% in Nevada in 2012).

As for the domicile of parties that are involved in patent litigation in Nevada, Figure 2 shows that not all cases filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada involve parties that reside, are incorporated, or have their principal place of business in Nevada. In 2010, 50% of cases filed that year did not involve any parties from Nevada, and only 25% of cases were filed against a Nevada party (including cases in which multiple parties were sued and a Nevada party was one of them). Of the cases filed in 2013, 84% involved Nevada parties, and 30% were filed against a Nevada party or multiple parties that included a Nevada party.

Figure 3 shows foreign-country domiciles. For the purposes of the statistics reported here, each case was coded for the domicile of the parties involved in the case; each case was coded only once for each country represented among plaintiffs and among defendants. Green columns represent countries’ appearances on the plaintiffs’ side and red columns represent countries’ appearances on the defendants’ side. Parties from 18 foreign countries were involved in patent cases filed in Nevada in 2010-2013. Most of the cases (72%) had U.S. parties involved on both sides of the dispute—either U.S. parties only or U.S. parties together with foreign parties. In 26% of the cases one side of the dispute involved only foreign parties, and in two cases there were only foreign parties on both sides of the dispute. Of course it is important to note that the statistics in Figure 3 do not provide a perfectly accurate picture of the global nature of patent litigation because some parties with a global presence were acting through their U.S. subsidiaries.

The charts in this blog post were prepared based on data available in the Lex Machina database as of January 2014. 

Professor Trimble welcomes any citing or quoting of this blog post or reposting of the entire blog post and/or the figures; however, she requests that you cite the author and title of the blog post and include a link to this page.