Federal Circuit strikes down Gilstrap’s four-factor test for patent venue

By Gene Quinn
September 21, 2017

Federal CircuitEarlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down a much criticized venue test created by Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. See In re: Cray Inc. The case worked its way to the Federal Circuit on a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking an order vacating the order of Judge Gilstrap refusing to transfer the case in question to the Western District of Wisconsin. Raytheon Company opposed the petition.

In a unanimous panel decision authored by Judge Alan Lourie (joined by Judges Reyna and Stoll), the Federal Circuit found that Judge Gilstrap misinterpreted the scope and effect of Federal Circuit precedent in determining that Cray maintained “a regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accordingly, Judge Gilstrap’s denial of Cray’s transfer motion was an abuse of discretion. The Federal Circuit panel ordered the case transferred, but did not decide to which court the case should be transferred. While Cray would prefer transfer to the Western District of Wisconsin, Raytheon would prefer transfer to the Western District of Texas. The Federal Circuit left the decision of which district to transfer the case to for remand.

While not going into great detail with respect to Judge Gilstrap’s four-factor test for venue, the Federal Circuit did rule that it “is not sufficiently tethered” to the “statutory language.”

Factual Background

Cray sells advanced supercomputers that Raytheon accuses of infringement. Cray is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business located there. It also maintains facilities in Bloomington, Minnesota; Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin; Pleasanton and San Jose, California; and Austin and Houston, Texas. Although Cray does not rent or own an office or any property in the Eastern District of Texas, it allowed Mr. Douglas Harless and Mr. Troy Testa to work remotely from their respective homes in that district.

Mr. Testa worked for Cray as a senior territory manager while residing in the district from 2010 to 2011 before the underlying suit was filed.

Mr. Harless worked as a “sales executive” for approximately seven years with associated sales of Cray systems in excess of $345 million. Mr. Harless received reimbursement for his cell phone usage for business purposes, internet fees, and mileage or “other costs” for business travel. Cray provided Mr. Harless with “administrative support” from its Minnesota office. He provided “price quotations” to customers, listing himself as the “account executive” and the person who prepared the quotation. The communications also identified his home telephone number as his “office” telephone number with an Eastern District of Texas area code. Mr. Harless, however, did not maintain Cray products at his home, nor did he maintain product literature at his home because it was available online. Cray never paid Mr. Harless for the use of his home to operate its business, or publicly advertised or otherwise indicated that his home residence was a Cray place of business.

 Judge Gilstrap’s Decision

Cray moved to transfer the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Raytheon under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), arguing that Cray does not “reside” within the Eastern District of Texas in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. (see case commentary here). Cray further argued that venue was improper because no acts of infringement occurred in the Eastern District of Texas, and no regular and established place of business was maintained within the district. Judge Gilstrap disagreed, finding that the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Cordis Corp. resolved the matter. Nevertheless, Gilstrap went on to set out a four factor test for other litigants and counsel as to what in his opinion constituted a regular and established place of business “in the modern era,” although Gilstrap declined to apply those factors in this case.

Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit began its substantive discussion with the meaning and history of the venue statute, and cautioned district courts to keep this history in mind and not to improperly “conflate showings that may be sufficient for other purposes, e.g., personal jurisdiction or the general venue statute, with the necessary shoring to establish proper venue in patent cases.” This is necessary because “regular and established place of business” requires more than minimum contacts for establishing personal jurisdiction.

After briefly parsing the statutory language of §1400(b) critical to the decision the Federal Circuit concluded that Judge Gilstrap’s four-factor test was not compliant with the statutory language. Judge Lourie simply concluded: “The district court’s four-factor test is not sufficiently tethered to this statutory language and thus it fails to inform each of the necessary requirements of the statute.”

The Federal Circuit would go on to explain that in determining whether a defendant has a regular and established place of business within a district in order to make venue proper requires analysis of the unique facts of the case, and for which there is “no precise rule.”

“The fact that Cray allowed its employees to work from the Eastern District of Texas is insufficient,” wrote Judge Lourie as he shifted to the specifics of the case before the Court. Lourie would go on to point out that Cray did not own, lease, rent or pay for any portion of the employees’ homes. Furthermore, Cray played no role in selecting the location, storing inventory, conducting demonstrations, maintaining the locations or in decisions relating to terminating the location of the residences.

The Federal Circuit also approvingly cited to the Fourth Circuit’s 1968 decision in American Cyanamid v. Nopco Chemical Company:

“The statute clearly requires that venue be laid where ‘the defendant has a regular and established place of business,’ not where the defendant’s employee owns a home in which he carries on some of the work that he does for the defendant.”

Judge Lourie distinguished these facts in this case from Cordis based on the fact that in Cordis “it was clear that the place of business was established by Cordis.” Furthermore, in Cordis, the appellant there received secretarial support services from a third-party provider that was located within the district, another distinguishing factor.

Conclusion

While the Federal Circuit would point out several times that there are no precise or limiting rules when determining venue based on the alleged existence of a regular and established place of business, factual inquiries that are relevant were identified. For example, if the defendant pays for the location that would be relevant and tend to show a regular and established place of business, as would the defendant advertising an address or location on a website, for example. Of course, reality still matters more than advertising according to the Federal Circuit, so even if a location were identified by a defendant it would still be necessary to actually conduct business at that particular location.

At the end of the day it seems that venue decisions will be highly fact intensive, which ordinarily should not make them ideal candidates for a writ of mandamus, which is reserved for exceptional circumstances where there is a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that seems to be more popular and successful in recent years, particularly with matters of venue, and particularly when the Eastern District of Texas makes those venue decisions. I think this mandamus decision can be best understood by taking into account the patent troll hysteria, the number of patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the reputation of the Eastern District of Texas for never transferring cases out, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland and continued angst surrounding venue decisions in the Eastern District of Texas.

I am not suggesting that I think Judge Gilstrap was correct, or that his four-factor venue test was appropriate, but rather noticing that ordinarily these types of decisions do not make for successful mandamus petitions. Of course, in the patent world these are no ordinary times. The question still remains, however, about how receptive the Federal Circuit will be to mandamus petitions moving forward. Is this a blip on the radar? Only time will tell.

 

The Author

Gene Quinn

Gene Quinn is a Patent Attorney and Editor and founder of IPWatchdog.com. Gene is also a principal lecturer in the PLI Patent Bar Review Course and an attorney with Widerman Malek. Gene’s specialty is in the area of strategic patent consulting, patent application drafting and patent prosecution. He consults with attorneys facing peculiar procedural issues at the Patent Office, advises investors and executives on patent law changes and pending litigation matters, and works with start-up businesses throughout the United States and around the world, primarily dealing with software and computer related innovations. is admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, is a Registered Patent Attorney and is also admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. CLICK HERE to send Gene a message.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 28 Comments comments. Join the discussion.

  1. Night Writer September 22, 2017 8:47 am

    Well, this is epic. You have to wonder how it would have turned out with a different panel. The panel was two goons (Reyna and Stoll) and Lourie (the old timer who hates patents and doesn’t understand technology past 1970.)

    So, this is kind of ridiculous. People in home offices don’t count? I don’t know. That just isn’t really in sink with reality. You have to have product or the company pay for the home or offer secretary services to you from the district? None of those make sense in a modern sense of a remote office.

    Just more judicial activism from this panel. These people really aren’t judges but employees of Google. The result may be right. But the analysis is so clearly just doesn’t care about what reality is and merely wants to makes findings to make it harder for jurisdiction in E.D. of Texas.

    The goon squad strikes again.

  2. Valuationguy September 22, 2017 10:36 am

    Disagree with you Night Writer. This is a more workable solution to prevent gaming and venue shopping….which is the court’s point. A flexible working arrangement allowing employees to work out of their homes ISN’T a REGULAR PLACE OF BUSINESS….UNLESS…it is the PRIMARY place where the entity’s business is conducted (i.e. a small consultancy where the home address is the physical business address….as opposed to a post office box). This is a fact-intensive inquiry….which the courts are best equipped to judge.

    While this is not a “patent owner friendly” decision….it’s actually a good decision in my view. Without the certainty, it provides a DIS-incentive to business to allow these types of flexible work arraignments. This decision won’t prevent ANY good infringement suits from occurring….it just forces the lawyers to recognize the need to establish a solid nexus with the jurisdiction they file in.

    While Lourie may be in the Prost/Dyk anti-patent camp of the CAFC…..I think neither Reyna or Stoll are.

    VG

  3. Anon September 22, 2017 10:55 am

    Valuationguy,

    I disagree with you as far as the result of THIS set of facts.

    The entity engaged an agent, and THAT agent’s regular place of business was clearly in the area.

    This was NOT a case where the agent merely “sometimes” worked from one area and did the majority of his work in another area (SUCH would lend value to your argument).

    Further, the court’s write-up makes what I consider an egregious error in trying to emphasize the larger entity’s lack of direct ownership or control. Such are red herrings when it comes to the larger entity’s purposeful engagement with a “local” agent. The larger entity did NOT have to contract with the “local” agent – but they in fact did so.

    Yes, this type of situation may be a fact-intensive inquiry, but here, the facts do NOT support the Ends reached (notwithstanding a line of cases from which the court could rest on).

  4. Night Writer September 22, 2017 11:21 am

    @2 Valuation Guy:

    You make some good points and I wouldn’t have as much problem with this if they had not tried to play games. If they had said, well, yes these are employees and they work from home and in E.D. of Texas, but think when a small number of home employees work in a district for a large company that should not count. OK. I could go along with that.

    >>I think neither Reyna or Stoll are.
    I would beg to differ. Both are part of the goon squad. We can argue about it on a case by case bases if you want. I am sure that Reyna is high on the list of 101 invalidations.

  5. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 12:11 pm

    In re Cray was decided using ancient caselaw and precedent for deciding the meaning of “place of business” requiring a party’s physical location in a district. The court tasked with deciding the most complex technical cases in the world ignores modern technology and acts as though it doesn’t exist. The CAFC vacated Judge Gilstrap’s tests for venue because they allegedly were not based on the language of the statute. In fact, Judge Gilstrap’s tests correctly consider how businesses operate in the modern world based on the language of the statute. The decision doesn’t consider the accepted, regular and established, virtual, internet nature of businesses today. We’ve come to expect this backwards thinking from the CAFC, and I’m not surprised by the decision. I could take pot shots at some of the panel members as being old and out of touch with modern technology, but what’s the point? The court suffers as a whole from stodginess and lack of creativity.

  6. Anon September 22, 2017 1:09 pm

    Peter,

    Quite aside from any of your comments, the court here does not even take into account the OLD notions of agency and the fact that the larger corporation decided all on its own to employ an agent entirely based in the area.

    They did not have to do so.

    The court misstates in its analysis (clear legal error, by the way) a notion that the larger corporation does not directly own or “control” the location of the agent that it has contracted with, completely neglecting the factual matter that ALL of the agent’s work – ALL of his “physical activity” – is in fact in the affected area.

    As I mentioned to Valuationguy, this is NOT a case where some mere passing or small portion of the work of an agent just happens to “pass through” an area.

    When the full context of the OLD law is considered – even with the OLD notions of agency, the CAFC badly missed the boat. One does not even have to get to your view (as correct as they may be).

  7. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 1:13 pm

    @Anon. Agreed. Were agency arguments raised in the briefing or at oral argument?

  8. Anon September 22, 2017 1:32 pm

    On remand, maybe Judge Gilstrap will a ua sponte state the OLD notions and tie those OLD notions to the statutory text (and thumb his nose at the errant CAFC).**

    **in a way, this would remind me of how Judge Rich (knowing patent law better than the Supreme Court) thumbed his nose at the Benson decision and (at least temporarily) restored some sanity with the Chakrabarty and Diehr cases.

  9. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 2:05 pm

    Maybe. But this was a missed opportunity if Raytheon didn’t raise agency issues in its briefing.

  10. Anon September 22, 2017 3:53 pm

    Agreed Peter.

    But I still fault the CAFC for the gross misapplication – especially as they got on a high horse to lecture Judge Gilstrap about the background/history/context of venue (apparently drunk on the Kool-aid of the “Tr011” propaganda).

    A court should be able to see a true objective view of an issue, and that does not seem to be the case based on the given facts.

  11. Gene Quinn September 22, 2017 5:42 pm

    Anon @8-

    I don’t know how Gilstrap does that in this case. The way I read the decision the CAFC has ordered the case transferred and has only left it up to Gilstrap to decide whether to transfer to the Western District of TX or the Western District of Wisconsin.

  12. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 5:49 pm

    True. I don’t know why Raytheon didn’t raise the agency issue in their briefing when they had the chance.

  13. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 5:50 pm

    But it probably wouldn’t have mattered because the CAFC decides cases before they write their opinions.

  14. Stephan Kinsella September 22, 2017 5:50 pm

    “Night Writer September 22, 2017 8:47 am”

    “Well, this is epic. You have to wonder how it would have turned out with a different panel. The panel was two goons (Reyna and Stoll) and Lourie (the old timer who hates patents and doesn’t understand technology past 1970.)”

    It is ridiculous to suggest that a federal judge on the CAFC “hates patents.” It’s also ridiculous to say he doesn’t “understand technology” and it’s ridiculous to insinuate that one’s ability to “understand technology” has anything to do with the soundness of one’s legal judgments or political views.You people are so pro-state and pro-patent that you demonize anyone slightly deviating from your pro-monopoly stance as “hating patents” and “not understanding technology.” Pathetic.

  15. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 5:58 pm

    Norman Stephan Kinsella (/k?n?s?l?/; born 1965) is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and “deontological anarcho-capitalist.” Wikipedia. What in the hell is that?

  16. Anon September 22, 2017 6:08 pm

    Gene @ 11,

    I recognize that my suggestion would be a direct rebuke to what the CAFC stated in its decision (and express reason for remand).

    HOWEVER (and this is more than just a bit of “Devil’s advocate’), the case has been remanded. As a remanded case, the case is fully now back under the control of Judge Gilstrap.

    It would take some cahonies to do as I suggest (and the new decision from Judge Gilstrap would need to be very clear as to the application of existing law – and the legal error of the CAFC).

    As I indicated – this reminds me of how Judge Rich did not take guff from an anti-patent Supreme Court and continued to press in his subsequent decisions that basically challenged both Benson and Flook.

    Judge Rich was able to carry himself that way because, as a writer to the Act of 1952, he knew what the law was, and what was essentially powerless “dicta” from the usual “higher court that shall NOT be challenged.

    Judge Gilstrap could write an opinion backing off of his own “Four Step” approach and yet obtain the same result by applying actual controlling law (which the CAFC did not properly do).

  17. Anon September 22, 2017 6:12 pm

    Mr. Kinsella @ 14.

    What is “pathetic” is your apparent Pollyanna view that the courts (and I would add the Court) have NOT been biased.

    It is beyond clear that certain judges approach cases with an ideological result already established.

    so pro-state and pro-patent that you demonize anyone slightly deviating from your pro-monopoly stance

    pro-state had NOTHING to do with this.
    pro-patent is a GOOD thing (if you have any understanding of innovation whatsoever)
    pro-monopoly only show how careless and incorrect you are with the terms that YOU want to sling around.

    I realize that Night Writer can fully defend himself, but your post is asinine and deserves the “demonizing” that you want to accuse others of.

  18. Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 6:26 pm

    Judge Gilstrap has a few options: (1) he could ask for briefing from the parties on the agency and transfer issues and enter an order that addresses both issues for future venue cases in line with the Cray tests; (2) he could ask for briefing from the parties on the agency and transfer issues and enter an order regarding transfer and a separate standing order requiring parties to address specific questions of agency in future venue dismissal motions in line with the Cray tests; (3) another creative idea; or (4) just issue a transfer order.

  19. Stephan Kinsella September 22, 2017 7:12 pm

    “Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 5:58 pm
    Norman Stephan Kinsella (/k?n?s?l?/; born 1965) is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and “deontological anarcho-capitalist.” Wikipedia. What in the hell is that?”

    Ask Wikipedia, or do some reading. I didn’t write it. But of course this has no relevance to the pro-IP/statist crap on this page by a bunch of IP whores and sellouts.

    “Anon September 22, 2017 6:12 pm
    Mr. Kinsella @ 14.

    What is “pathetic” is your apparent Pollyanna view that the courts (and I would add the Court) have NOT been biased.”

    I don’t think the courts are not biased, you chimp. I think the courts are not real courts. They are just part of the state apparatus pretending to do justice but their real job is just to interpret statutes–which are mostly unjust according to any rational standard.

  20. Stephan Kinsella September 22, 2017 7:14 pm

    “Peter Corcoran September 22, 2017 5:58 pm
    Norman Stephan Kinsella (/k?n?s?l?/; born 1965) is an American intellectual property lawyer, author, and “deontological anarcho-capitalist.” Wikipedia. What in the hell is that?”

    I’m a patent lawyer. I’m an anarchist (of a certain stripe). I believe in individual rights (hence, deontological)–that is, I don’t think you should judge every policy by some utilitarian or empirical balancing test–we should have principles based on right and wrong. Wow, how shockig. And how shocking you don’t know any of this, yet feel competent to weigh in on normative matters. The Internet is full of chattering chimps like Quinn and people on this thread.

  21. Night Writer September 23, 2017 8:25 am

    @14 : Stephan Kinsella: “It is ridiculous to suggest that a federal judge on the CAFC ‘hates patents.’ / ‘understand technology’ / ‘understand technology’ has anything to do with the soundness of one’s legal judgments or political understanding technology.” Pathetic.”

    Oh goodness a joker. First, to “understand technology” you need an education and experience. I am not going to play your troll game of ignoring everything else I have posted, but I have given many examples of our goon squad making characterization about technology and/or science that are as bad as telling us that the Sun goes around the Earth. See Taranto’s arguments about building any machine that does anything that a human brain can as being “per se obvious.” (Just so bad as to justify impeachment.) There are 10’s of examples like this that I have posted about.

    I can’t stop laughing reading, “‘understand technology’ has anything to do with the soundness of one’s legal judgments.” Well read above. Taranto science/technology understanding of simulating the human mind (note the ignorance of both cognitive psychology and computer science-note most ph.d.’s in cognitive psychology involve trying to simulate human processes on a computer) is so bad that he says anything you do is per se obvious (a legal conclusion.)

    Please address these points. (As a side note–stick to above–Renya has no training in science and no training in patent law. Anyone that works in this area knows that it takes many years to understand patent law and many years of hard study to understand science. I have degrees from the top 5 science/engineering schools and have spent many years studying and doing research.) (As another side note: The goon squad was selected by Google and were certainly anti-patent.)

    Anyway, you just yapped out conclusions with no evidence. I just gave you one concrete example. Respond to it.

  22. Night Writer September 23, 2017 8:58 am

    >>Stephan Kinsella “The Internet is full of chattering chimps like Quinn and people on this thread.”

    Address the substance and engage with facts. I just gave you a very concrete example above. Please engage in substantive debate.

  23. Anon September 23, 2017 9:22 am

    I don’t think the courts are not biased, you chimp.

    You attacked someone on the basis of bias.

    but their real job is just to interpret statutes–which are mostly unjust according to any rational standard.

    You use the term “rational” but I do not think that you understand what that term means.

    You say that you are a patent lawyer, yet you hold such disdain for things patent related. I would LOVE to see you explain to clients how your views align with their best interests (or how ethically you can even begin to serve those best interests).

  24. Stephan Kinsella September 23, 2017 11:43 am

    Anon: “You say that you are a patent lawyer, yet you hold such disdain for things patent related. I would LOVE to see you explain to clients how your views align with their best interests (or how ethically you can even begin to serve those best interests).”

    The “yet” here is your tell. As if being a patent attorney is incompatible with seeing the wreckage patent law causes. You have nothing worth saying or responding to-you are a nothing, nym. Crawl back under your wrock.

  25. Anon September 23, 2017 12:50 pm

    The “yet” here is your tell.

    Tell?

    It is a point of emphasis that you disdain that which you are supposed to be being providing value with to your clients.

    I see that you only “answer” that point of emphasis with (undeserved) umbrage and empty insults – why don’t you try to actually answer the point put to you?

    seeing the wreckage patent law causes

    Like what wreckage? And what is your “option” to protecting innovation? What exactly DO you do as a patent attorney? What do you tell your clients that you are doing for them? Do you tell them that you believe that you are “causing wreckage” by trying to protect their innovation? Or are you one of those “patent attorneys” in name only, seeking to wreck the protections that others have obtained?

    You have nothing worth saying or responding to-you are a nothing, nym. Crawl back under your wrock.

    You remind me of someone else who so often accuses others of the very traits that you yourself display.

    As to “nym,” you may desire (as is freely your choice) to advertise your name and attempt to bring in all the baggage associated with it. Me, I prefer that you pay attention to the words themselves without any attempt at borrowed authority. For you to ploy a version of the “use your real name” argument as if somehow THAT sets the values of the words actually shared only shows how little you are interested in what those words are – how little you are interested in any actual exchange. You have your viewpoint and that is all that is important to you. The “crawl back under” statement does not apply to me. It certainly applies to you.

  26. Stephan Kinsella September 23, 2017 1:22 pm

    Anon: “It is a point of emphasis that you disdain that which you are supposed to be being providing value with to your clients.”

    I do provide value to my clients. What I don’t do is lie about what the law should be.

    “I see that you only “answer” that point of emphasis with (undeserved) umbrage and empty insults – why don’t you try to actually answer the point put to you?”

    Because people like you have no points, and no arguments.

    “Like what wreckage?”

    Reduced innovation and infringement on property rights.

    ” And what is your “option” to protecting innovation?”

    Loaded question.

    ” What exactly DO you do as a patent attorney?”

    The same as other patent attorneys, dolt.

    ” What do you tell your clients that you are doing for them? Do you tell them that you believe that you are “causing wreckage” by trying to protect their innovation?”

    I tell them that given the system it is in their interest to obtain patents. That does not mean the system makes sense in the first place.

    ” Or are you one of those “patent attorneys” in name only, seeking to wreck the protections that others have obtained?”

    I have never heard of such creatures. Do tell.

  27. Gene Quinn September 23, 2017 2:22 pm

    TO ALL:

    Stephen Kinsella has been once again banned. Not sure how he was able to comment, but long time readers know that he was banned many years ago. He is a liar and a fraud. His brand of commentary is not tolerated here.

    -Gene

  28. Anon September 24, 2017 10:36 am

    Kinsella suffers from a far too overindulgent self importance and glorification of his “way” of thinking.

    I put “way” in quotes because he is more of a follower of the Rothbard/Mises school of thought and merely imagines himself as some type of anarchist “savior.”

    He likely does not even realize that his “style” here only brings disrepute to his views. He likely sees the “banning” (now, for a second time) as some type of “alignment” with his heroes for whom, “the establishment” sought to “ban” as well.

    Instead of being “banned” for thought too critical and not in line with “mainstream,” Mr. Kinsella is merely being banned for being an arse.

    Personally, I have no issues with the different historical/economic/philosophical views that one such as Mr. Kinsella may have. Heck, I am not even “against” what some may consider a sharp dialogue.

    But what Mr. Kinsella presents here is neither dialogue, nor particularly sharp. It just does not take much thinking at all to wade in with only insults and to avoid all counterpoints presented.

    As is, with the ban reinstated, let me say this: Mr. Kinsella, you have squandered an opportunity to intelligently present your ardently held beliefs and have done yourself (and your beliefs) a disservice.

    That you want to be passionate about your beliefs is one thing. That you want to present yourself so poorly is quite another.

    And yet another – a point presented that you ran away from: that you are a supreme hypocrite in “The same as other patent attorneys, dolt.” as your “answer” which is NO answer to the question of ethically acting in accord with your “passionate beliefs”). Maybe you should set your mind to understanding “cognitive dissonance.” Like a certain someone else on another blog, that you profess to do that which is anathema to you may be what causes you to be an arse, and quite frankly, an embarrassment to those that may share your beliefs (and not the martyr of which I suspect you see yourself as).

Post a Comment

Respectfully add to the discussion.

Name *
Email *
Website