January 3, 2011
Reader of minds Sigmund Freud once observed, "most people are trash." So it is with litigators, sworn officers of the Court, that practice character assassination, and judges, the Court incarnate, that buy into it. Fortunately, some judges see through it. TXED Magistrate Judge Charles Everingham granted a new trial in Commil USA v. Cisco Systems, "based on statements made by defense counsel during trial regarding the Jewish faith of one of plaintiff's owners and its client representative, including references to dietary rules and the trial of Jesus."
In his 2010.12.29 order granting a new trial on indirect infringement and damages:
"[Counsel's comments] impliedly aligns [defense] counsel's religious preference with that of the jurors and employs an 'us v. them' mentality -- i.e., 'we are Christian and they are Jewish.' When these comments are considered as a whole, the court concludes that the comments prejudiced the jury's findings regarding indirect infringement and damages. . . . [E]ven though no objections were made to these remarks, the court is convinced that the jury's verdict is inconsistent with substantial justice. . . ."
Source: Docket Navigator
This is not an isolated event. This reporter has witnessed such juvenile antics in multiple litigations, one in representation of a major corporation in a patent suit. In that case, it appears to have had the intended effect. Score one for Sigmund.
One must bear in mind the sociopathic nature of corporations, including those who suckle their livelihoods from such. In such a dynamic, the more highly paid, the more vicious the bite, but with smooth delivery, and lip service to ethics. Psychopathy in action is nothing more than acting in perceived self-interest without empathy. From hence sprang Dr. Frued's observation.
Posted by Patent Hawk at January 3, 2011 12:35 PM | Litigation
That wouldn't happen in the patent world - unless those damm trolls start it first.
Posted by: Pedantic Pete at January 3, 2011 1:22 PM
Which attorney made the comments?
Posted by: anon at January 4, 2011 3:02 PM
I'm not going to embarrass the attorney any further by naming him here, but I did some poking around just to find out some of the backstory.
From what I've been able to gather, the comments were most likely driven by some kind of a focus group study, and I can't help but think the attorney was pressured to make the remarks (since he has an ongoing reputation to consider).
Posted by: Patrick at January 5, 2011 12:37 PM