<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legal Book &#187; federal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.the-legal-book.com/tag/federal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com</link>
	<description>Legal product guide</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:51:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Courthouse Supervisor Faces Individual Liability Under FMLA</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/courthouse-supervisor-faces-individual-liability-under-fmla/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/courthouse-supervisor-faces-individual-liability-under-fmla/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:51:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[allows-employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court-system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first-impression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual-under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[split-the-circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[under-the-federal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/courthouse-supervisor-faces-individual-liability-under-fmla/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a case of first impression, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a court system supervisor may be liable as an individual under the federal law that allows employees to take 12 weeks of job-protected leave for medical reasons. The issue has split the circuit courts.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a case of first impression, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a court system supervisor may be liable as an individual under the federal law that allows employees to take 12 weeks of job-protected leave for medical reasons. The issue has split the circuit courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/courthouse-supervisor-faces-individual-liability-under-fmla/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Amex Again Loses Bid to Enforce Waiver</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fresh-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keeps-coming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-answer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-2nd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three-years]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a case that has returned twice in three years because of fresh case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit keeps coming up with the same answer: A class action waiver provision in American Express contracts with merchants is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a case that has returned twice in three years because of fresh case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, the 2nd Circuit keeps coming up with the same answer: A class action waiver provision in American Express contracts with merchants is unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/amex-again-loses-bid-to-enforce-waiver/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McKool Hires Day Pitney Partners to Launch Whistle-blower Practice</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mckool-hires-day-pitney-partners-to-launch-whistle-blower-practice/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mckool-hires-day-pitney-partners-to-launch-whistle-blower-practice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 07:40:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[addition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[announced-the-addition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims-since]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dallas-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pitney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pitney-the-same]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qui-tam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-same]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-timing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[timing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mckool-hires-day-pitney-partners-to-launch-whistle-blower-practice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the timing may have been a coincidence, Dallas-based McKool Smith announced the addition of two accomplished qui tam partners from Day Pitney the same day the federal government chose to celebrate the $30 billion that has been recovered as a result of whistleblower claims since 1986.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While the timing may have been a coincidence, Dallas-based McKool Smith announced the addition of two accomplished qui tam partners from Day Pitney the same day the federal government chose to celebrate the $30 billion that has been recovered as a result of whistleblower claims since 1986.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/mckool-hires-day-pitney-partners-to-launch-whistle-blower-practice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit Upholds State Law Favoring American Steel</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-state-law-favoring-american-steel/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-state-law-favoring-american-steel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[not-unconstitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public-works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruled-last]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state-law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-3rd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[titutional-or-pre]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-state-law-favoring-american-steel/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rejecting a Delaware corporation's arguments, the 3rd Circuit ruled last week that a Pennsylvania state law that mandates that steel used in public works projects be made in the United States is not unconstitutional or pre-empted by the federal Buy American Act.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rejecting a Delaware corporation&#8217;s arguments, the 3rd Circuit ruled last week that a Pennsylvania state law that mandates that steel used in public works projects be made in the United States is not unconstitutional or pre-empted by the federal Buy American Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/3rd-circuit-upholds-state-law-favoring-american-steel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boeing Settles Whistleblower Suit for $4.4 Mil.</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/boeing-settles-whistleblower-suit-for-4-4-mil/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/boeing-settles-whistleblower-suit-for-4-4-mil/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:52:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boeing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinook-helicopter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-false]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inflated-bills]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[work-related]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/boeing-settles-whistleblower-suit-for-4-4-mil/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Boeing Co. has agreed to pay nearly $4.4 million to settle a Federal False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit in which the company was alleged to have submitted inflated bills to the U.S. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Boeing Co. has agreed to pay nearly $4.4 million to settle a Federal False Claims Act whistleblower lawsuit in which the company was alleged to have submitted inflated bills to the U.S. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/boeing-settles-whistleblower-suit-for-4-4-mil/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Full Federal Circuit to reconsider broadened doctrine of intervening rights</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/full-federal-circuit-to-reconsider-broadened-doctrine-of-intervening-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/full-federal-circuit-to-reconsider-broadened-doctrine-of-intervening-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 20:52:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alleged-infringer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[last-year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[owners-may]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent-claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent-office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[product-based]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relief-because]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/full-federal-circuit-to-reconsider-broadened-doctrine-of-intervening-rights/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patent owners may breathe a sigh of relief because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to review a ruling from last year in a case about an alleged infringer's right to sell a product based on a patent claim subsequently changed in a patent office action.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patent owners may breathe a sigh of relief because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to review a ruling from last year in a case about an alleged infringer&#8217;s right to sell a product based on a patent claim subsequently changed in a patent office action.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/full-federal-circuit-to-reconsider-broadened-doctrine-of-intervening-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From the Experts: Super Bowl Ads Meet Corporate Compliance</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/from-the-experts-super-bowl-ads-meet-corporate-compliance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/from-the-experts-super-bowl-ads-meet-corporate-compliance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 07:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agency-opinion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[closing-letter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[companies-should]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compliance-programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer-protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[during-last]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[involving-advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[practices-used]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-bowl]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-2012]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/from-the-experts-super-bowl-ads-meet-corporate-compliance/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just in time for the 2012 Super Bowl, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a closing letter involving advertising practices used during last year's big game. The agency opinion demonstrates why all companies should have internal antitrust and consumer protection compliance programs in place.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just in time for the 2012 Super Bowl, the Federal Trade Commission has issued a closing letter involving advertising practices used during last year&#8217;s big game. The agency opinion demonstrates why all companies should have internal antitrust and consumer protection compliance programs in place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/from-the-experts-super-bowl-ads-meet-corporate-compliance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Occupy the Courts&#8217; Protests Hit Supreme Court and Federal Courthouses Nationwide</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jan 2012 09:40:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens-united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-courthouses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday-demonstrators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[its-campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[massed-at-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movement-took]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[occupy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police-barricade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protest-the-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pushed-through]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Occupy movement took its campaign against corporate domination to the federal judiciary Friday. Demonstrators pushed through a police barricade and stormed the U.S. Supreme Court building, while others massed at federal courthouses nationwide to protest the Court's 2010 Citizens United decision.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Occupy movement took its campaign against corporate domination to the federal judiciary Friday. Demonstrators pushed through a police barricade and stormed the U.S. Supreme Court building, while others massed at federal courthouses nationwide to protest the Court&#8217;s 2010 Citizens United decision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/occupy-the-courts-protests-hit-supreme-court-and-federal-courthouses-nationwide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Toyota blames driver for fatal accident, signaling MDL defense</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/toyota-blames-driver-for-fatal-accident-signaling-mdl-defense/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/toyota-blames-driver-for-fatal-accident-signaling-mdl-defense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 22:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bellwether-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crash-involving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceased-driver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lurched-forward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-first]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[toyota]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/toyota-blames-driver-for-fatal-accident-signaling-mdl-defense/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a court document that provided a glimpse into Toyota's potential defense in the first bellwether case in the federal multidistrict litigation over sudden acceleration, the company blamed a deceased driver for a crash involving a 2008 Camry that allegedly lurched forward while on an exit ramp.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In a court document that provided a glimpse into Toyota&#8217;s potential defense in the first bellwether case in the federal multidistrict litigation over sudden acceleration, the company blamed a deceased driver for a crash involving a 2008 Camry that allegedly lurched forward while on an exit ramp.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/toyota-blames-driver-for-fatal-accident-signaling-mdl-defense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court says credit repair groups can force consumers into arbitration</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit-repair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gives-consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rejecting-arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repair-organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senior-citizen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair-or-deceptive]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Credit repair organizations can require consumers to arbitrate their claims, the Supreme Court has ruled, rejecting arguments by consumer and senior citizen groups that the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act gives consumers a non-waivable right to go to court with claims of unfair or deceptive practices.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Credit repair organizations can require consumers to arbitrate their claims, the Supreme Court has ruled, rejecting arguments by consumer and senior citizen groups that the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act gives consumers a non-waivable right to go to court with claims of unfair or deceptive practices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court says credit repair groups can force consumers into arbitration</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:26:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit-repair]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gives-consumers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rejecting-arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[repair-organizations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair-or-deceptive]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Credit repair organizations can require consumers to arbitrate their claims, the Supreme Court has ruled, rejecting arguments by consumer and senior citizen groups that the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act gives consumers a non-waivable right to go to court with claims of unfair or deceptive practices.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Credit repair organizations can require consumers to arbitrate their claims, the Supreme Court has ruled, rejecting arguments by consumer and senior citizen groups that the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act gives consumers a non-waivable right to go to court with claims of unfair or deceptive practices.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/court-says-credit-repair-groups-can-force-consumers-into-arbitration-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In medical leave case, questions of self-care and sovereign immunity</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-medical-leave-case-questions-of-self-care-and-sovereign-immunity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-medical-leave-case-questions-of-self-care-and-sovereign-immunity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:26:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employees-leave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fired-employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illnesses-under]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judiciary-urged]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[key-provision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical-leave]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wednesday]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-medical-leave-case-questions-of-self-care-and-sovereign-immunity/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The lawyer for a fired employee of the Maryland judiciary urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to find that states can be sued when they refuse to give their employees leave for serious illnesses under a key provision of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The lawyer for a fired employee of the Maryland judiciary urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to find that states can be sued when they refuse to give their employees leave for serious illnesses under a key provision of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-medical-leave-case-questions-of-self-care-and-sovereign-immunity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Librarian Fired Over False Alarm Can Pursue Bulk of Suit Against Firm</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/law-librarian-fired-over-false-alarm-can-pursue-bulk-of-suit-against-firm/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/law-librarian-fired-over-false-alarm-can-pursue-bulk-of-suit-against-firm/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:10:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[boss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ciemniecki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-suit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fire-alarm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[her-wages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law-firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sheila-ciemniecki]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wages]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/law-librarian-fired-over-false-alarm-can-pursue-bulk-of-suit-against-firm/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A former librarian for a New Jersey law firm can proceed with her federal suit asserting she was falsely accused of pulling a fire alarm and wrongfully discharged as a result, a judge has ruled. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A former librarian for a New Jersey law firm can proceed with her federal suit asserting she was falsely accused of pulling a fire alarm and wrongfully discharged as a result, a judge has ruled. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/law-librarian-fired-over-false-alarm-can-pursue-bulk-of-suit-against-firm/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whistleblower Ven-A-Care Strikes Again; Actavis to Pay $203 Million in Drug Pricing Settlements</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/whistleblower-ven-a-care-strikes-again-actavis-to-pay-203-million-in-drug-pricing-settlements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/whistleblower-ven-a-care-strikes-again-actavis-to-pay-203-million-in-drug-pricing-settlements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 07:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[actavis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heels]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pay-oversized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[separate-settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-heels]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/whistleblower-ven-a-care-strikes-again-actavis-to-pay-203-million-in-drug-pricing-settlements/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Drug maker Actavis has agreed to pay $118.6 million to settle allegations that it caused the federal government and four states to pay oversized Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for generic drugs. The settlement comes on the heels of a separate settlement between Actavis and Texas for $84 million.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Drug maker Actavis has agreed to pay $118.6 million to settle allegations that it caused the federal government and four states to pay oversized Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements for generic drugs. The settlement comes on the heels of a separate settlement between Actavis and Texas for $84 million.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/whistleblower-ven-a-care-strikes-again-actavis-to-pay-203-million-in-drug-pricing-settlements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Vioxx Plaintiffs Lawyers Lose Bid for Fees from $950 Million Government Settlement</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/vioxx-plaintiffs-lawyers-lose-bid-for-fees-from-950-million-government-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/vioxx-plaintiffs-lawyers-lose-bid-for-fees-from-950-million-government-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 04:19:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[315-million]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[950-million]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[common-benefit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers-were]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement-the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states-reached]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/vioxx-plaintiffs-lawyers-lose-bid-for-fees-from-950-million-government-settlement/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiffs lawyers were granted $315 million in common benefit funds from the $4.85 billion settlement that Merck reached in the Vioxx multidistrict litigation in 2007. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Plaintiffs lawyers were granted $315 million in common benefit funds from the $4.85 billion settlement that Merck reached in the Vioxx multidistrict litigation in 2007. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/vioxx-plaintiffs-lawyers-lose-bid-for-fees-from-950-million-government-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit upholds $4.7M fee award to Cordis over MarcTec&#8217;s litigation misconduct</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-upholds-4-7m-fee-award-to-cordis-over-marctecs-litigation-misconduct/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-upholds-4-7m-fee-award-to-cordis-over-marctecs-litigation-misconduct/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 12:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cordis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[finding-the-case]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[johnson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation-misconduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent-defendant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-district]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-upholds-4-7m-fee-award-to-cordis-over-marctecs-litigation-misconduct/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Federal Circuit panel has upheld a lower court's award of nearly $4.7 million in attorney and expert fees to patent defendant and Johnson &#038; Johnson subsidiary Cordis for its opponent's litigation misconduct, holding that the district court did not err in finding the case exceptional.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Federal Circuit panel has upheld a lower court&#8217;s award of nearly $4.7 million in attorney and expert fees to patent defendant and Johnson &#038; Johnson subsidiary Cordis for its opponent&#8217;s litigation misconduct, holding that the district court did not err in finding the case exceptional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-upholds-4-7m-fee-award-to-cordis-over-marctecs-litigation-misconduct/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit affirms cancellation of &#8216;G the Goodyman&#8217; mark, citing discovery noncompliance</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal-board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[default-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodyman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat-snacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanction-the-trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark-trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unanimous-panel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit has affirmed a cancellation of the "G The Goodyman" trademark for meat snacks and bakery products. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Circuit has affirmed a cancellation of the &#8220;G The Goodyman&#8221; trademark for meat snacks and bakery products. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit affirms cancellation of &#8216;G the Goodyman&#8217; mark, citing discovery noncompliance</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal-board]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[default-judgment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodyman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meat-snacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark-trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unanimous-panel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit has affirmed a cancellation of the "G The Goodyman" trademark for meat snacks and bakery products. A unanimous panel upheld a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to issue a default judgment and sanction the trademark registrant by canceling the trademark registration.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Circuit has affirmed a cancellation of the &#8220;G The Goodyman&#8221; trademark for meat snacks and bakery products. A unanimous panel upheld a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to issue a default judgment and sanction the trademark registrant by canceling the trademark registration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-affirms-cancellation-of-g-the-goodyman-mark-citing-discovery-noncompliance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Annual Report, Roberts Defends Supreme Court Ethics Procedures</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-annual-report-roberts-defends-supreme-court-ethics-procedures/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-annual-report-roberts-defends-supreme-court-ethics-procedures/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[capability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colleagues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complete-confidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[his-year-end]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roberts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-capability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-state]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-annual-report-roberts-defends-supreme-court-ethics-procedures/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., in his year-end report on the state of the federal judiciary, offered a vigorous defense of the Supreme Court's handling of ethical issues. He also said he has "complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., in his year-end report on the state of the federal judiciary, offered a vigorous defense of the Supreme Court&#8217;s handling of ethical issues. He also said he has &#8220;complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/in-annual-report-roberts-defends-supreme-court-ethics-procedures/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Plum Role for MoFo Associate</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/a-plum-role-for-mofo-associate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/a-plum-role-for-mofo-associate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fell-right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foerster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[key-front]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[kind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morrison]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[only-dream]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pro-bono]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/a-plum-role-for-mofo-associate/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's the kind of case, and career opportunity, that plenty of associates can only dream of. And it fell right in Rita Lin's lap. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s the kind of case, and career opportunity, that plenty of associates can only dream of. And it fell right in Rita Lin&#8217;s lap. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/a-plum-role-for-mofo-associate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal, State Claims May Be Split  In Takings Case, 3rd Circuit Rules</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-state-claims-may-be-split-in-takings-case-3rd-circuit-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-state-claims-may-be-split-in-takings-case-3rd-circuit-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[being-split]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defendants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plaintiff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state-action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-plaintiff]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-state-claims-may-be-split-in-takings-case-3rd-circuit-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided a plaintiff's federal claims are not precluded when the plaintiff puts the defendants in a state action on notice that the federal claims are being split off and the defense never objects.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided a plaintiff&#8217;s federal claims are not precluded when the plaintiff puts the defendants in a state action on notice that the federal claims are being split off and the defense never objects.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-state-claims-may-be-split-in-takings-case-3rd-circuit-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>State&#8217;s removal of case does not automatically waive sovereign immunity, 1st Circuit rules</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/states-removal-of-case-does-not-automatically-waive-sovereign-immunity-1st-circuit-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/states-removal-of-case-does-not-automatically-waive-sovereign-immunity-1st-circuit-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:48:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[among-the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals-courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[police-officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling-affirms]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-1st]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waives-its]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/states-removal-of-case-does-not-automatically-waive-sovereign-immunity-1st-circuit-rules/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deepening a split among the federal appeals courts, the 1st Circuit has ruled that a state's removal of a claim to federal court waives its sovereign immunity only if the removal gives the state an unfair advantage. The ruling affirms a lower court judgment against claims by a police officers' union.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deepening a split among the federal appeals courts, the 1st Circuit has ruled that a state&#8217;s removal of a claim to federal court waives its sovereign immunity only if the removal gives the state an unfair advantage. The ruling affirms a lower court judgment against claims by a police officers&#8217; union.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/states-removal-of-case-does-not-automatically-waive-sovereign-immunity-1st-circuit-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Computer Misuse Becomes a Crime</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/when-computer-misuse-becomes-a-crime/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/when-computer-misuse-becomes-a-crime/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2011 07:06:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer-fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[computer-or-fib]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heated-battle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oral-argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[out-whether]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[over-civil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the-federal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/when-computer-misuse-becomes-a-crime/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What started as a routine prosecution stemming from an employment dispute has turned into a heated battle over civil liberties in the digital age. At oral argument on Thursday, an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit will sort out whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act allows for the federal prosecution of employees who so much as check a ballgame score on a work computer or fib on Facebook in violation of a terms of use agreement.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What started as a routine prosecution stemming from an employment dispute has turned into a heated battle over civil liberties in the digital age. At oral argument on Thursday, an en banc panel of the 9th Circuit will sort out whether the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act allows for the federal prosecution of employees who so much as check a ballgame score on a work computer or fib on Facebook in violation of a terms of use agreement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/when-computer-misuse-becomes-a-crime/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ&#8217;s classified power play</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dojs-classified-power-play/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dojs-classified-power-play/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 23:39:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[against-the-federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brewing-over]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[civil-cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classified-national]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pursue-claims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security-information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[whether-lawyers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dojs-classified-power-play/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A constitutional fight is brewing over whether lawyers in civil cases have a right to access and disseminate classified national security information to pursue claims against the federal government.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A constitutional fight is brewing over whether lawyers in civil cases have a right to access and disseminate classified national security information to pursue claims against the federal government.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/dojs-classified-power-play/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Circuit Prods Delaware to Send Cases to Northern District</title>
		<link>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-prods-delaware-to-send-cases-to-northern-district/</link>
		<comments>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-prods-delaware-to-send-cases-to-northern-district/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 06:03:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Master</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[district-court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal-circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[friday]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lot-more]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[northern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[northern-district]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent-infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-prods-delaware-to-send-cases-to-northern-district/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus Friday ordering the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to transfer a patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California. ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus Friday ordering the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to transfer a patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.the-legal-book.com/uncategorized/federal-circuit-prods-delaware-to-send-cases-to-northern-district/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

