<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Yale Law Library - Reference Blog : Practice</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Practice/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: Practice</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 SP1 (Build: 30415.43)</generator><item><title>Were patent appeals judges unconstitutionally appointed?</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/04/28/could-constitutional-flaw-unravel-eight-years-of-patent-board-rulings.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:42:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:158</guid><dc:creator>ct286</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may have a major problem on its
hands -- the possibly unconstitutional appointment of nearly two-thirds
of its patent appeals judges.&amp;nbsp; Read more about this case &lt;a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1209114346908"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp; &lt;span id="mDocumentText_ctl00_mTextDisplay" class="DocumentBody"&gt;Translogic Technology, &lt;/span&gt;a company whose patent was rejected, is raising this issue in a petition to the &lt;span id="mDocumentText_ctl00_mTextDisplay" class="DocumentBody"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;U.S. Supreme Court.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; A copy of the petition is available for viewing at the Law Library Reference Desk.&lt;br /&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=158" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Practice/default.aspx">Practice</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/U.S.+Supreme+Court/default.aspx">U.S. Supreme Court</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Judicial+Reform/default.aspx">Judicial Reform</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Patents/default.aspx">Patents</category></item><item><title>Lawyers Open Their File Cabinets for a Web Resource</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/04/28/lawyers-open-their-file-cabinets-for-a-web-resource.aspx</link><pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:24:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:157</guid><dc:creator>ct286</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;div id="byline" class="byline"&gt;By ANNE EISENBERG, New York Times&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div id="pubdate" class="timestamp"&gt;Published: April 27, 2008.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div id="pubdate" class="timestamp"&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;	
&lt;div id="summary" class="story"&gt;Services are appearing on the Web that
may make it easier for consumers to do their own preliminary homework
on legal issues before seeking professional help.&amp;nbsp; Read more &lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technology/27novel.html?ex=1366948800&amp;amp;en=382b42e2594cf3b7&amp;amp;ei=5124&amp;amp;partner=permalink&amp;amp;exprod=permalink"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=157" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Practice/default.aspx">Practice</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Open+Access/default.aspx">Open Access</category></item><item><title>Lawyer and Client Sanctioned $29K for Conduct During a Deposition</title><link>http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/2008/03/07/53.aspx</link><pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:32:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">3dba5dbf-cc88-412d-a5e1-dc96318a2d17:53</guid><dc:creator>Tom Boone</dc:creator><slash:comments>0</slash:comments><description>&lt;p&gt;U.S. District Judge Eduardo Robreno of Philadelphia has tallied the
number of times Aaron Wider, the CEO of HTFC, dropped the F-word or a
variant of it in a deposition — it was 73 times — and calculated the
more than $29,000 sanction he and his lawyer Joseph R. Ziccardi should
pay. In his &lt;a href="http://www.websupp.com/data/EDPA/2:06-cv-05291-28-EDPA.pdf"&gt;44-page opinion&lt;/a&gt; in &lt;i&gt;GMAC Bank v. HTFC Corp.,&lt;/i&gt; U.S.
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno found that Ziccardi was also to blame
for his client&amp;#39;s hostile conduct because he failed to stop his client&amp;#39;s
tirades and persuade him to answer questions. &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;(via &lt;a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1204631594910"&gt;The Legal Intelligencer&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1204631594910"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/aggbug.aspx?PostID=53" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Ethics/default.aspx">Ethics</category><category domain="http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/reference/archive/tags/Practice/default.aspx">Practice</category></item></channel></rss>