Jan. 22: AABANY and NYCLA present “Patents 101”
On January 22, 2014, the AABANY Intellectual Property Committee and the NYCLA Entertainment, Media, Intellectual Property and Sports Committee presented a CLE entitled “Patents 101: What Can be Protected by Patent Rights." Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP hosted the event at their office at 601 Lexington Avenue. Wan Chieh (Jenny) Lee moderated the panel featuring: Sapna Palla (Counsel at Kaye Scholer), and Annie Huang (Counsel at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP). The panelists addressed the developing Supreme Court jurisprudence on the requirements for patent eligible subject matter, particularly focusing on the impact of the recent Myriad decision on the life science industry, and the highly anticipated Alice v. CLS case relating to patent eligibility of computer implemented inventions, for which oral arguments will be heard by the Supreme Court at the end of March this year. The presentation was well-received, and the audience members actively engaged in questions and discussions with the panelists. Despite the weather condititions, a total of 13 attorneys attended this event. Attendees received 1.0 credit in Areas of Professional Practice.
From the Empire Mock Trial Association: 8th Annual Downtown Mock Trial Tournament
Earn 3 free CLE credits while educating top collegiate mock trial competitors!
The nonprofit Empire Mock Trial Association (“EMTA”), in conjunction with NYU Mock trial, is pleased to invite you to our eighth annual Downtown Invitational mock trial tournament on January 25-27 at Kings County Supreme Court in Brooklyn. Each year the Downtown brings together sixteen of the top collegiate trial advocacy teams. This year’s field includes Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Virginia, and the defending national champion, Florida State University.
You can help teach talented, motivated college students about the law by volunteering just a few hours of your time. In exchange, we’ll provide you with free non-transitional CLE credits in the category of skills.
I’ve included general information about the event below, and you can register to judge here: http://www.empiremocktrial.org/site/judge.
- Features four preliminary rounds of competition, and you can judge as many or as few as you like—no litigation experience is required
- Please free to invite a friend or colleague to co-judge with you at the tournament. We’ll pair you together!
- 16 top trial advocacy teams will compete including Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Virginia, and defending national champion Florida State University
- We’ll serve complimentary food and beverages as a token of our appreciation
- Registering takes less than a minute – just visit our site
We’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Feel free to call (917-426-EMTA) or e-mail us ([email protected])
JOINT MINORITY BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL SCREENING PANEL REPORTS QUALIFICATION RATINGS
PRESS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 14, 2013 – New York
JOINT MINORITY BAR ASSOCIATION JUDICIAL SCREENING PANEL REPORTS QUALIFICATION RATINGS
(NY, NY) The Joint Minority Bar Association Judicial Screening Panel recently interviewed and rated judicial candidates for the Civil Court of the City of New York and the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Interviews were conducted by representatives of the Asian American Bar Association of New York, Dominican Bar Association, LGBT Bar Association, Metropolitan Black Bar Association, Puerto Rican Bar Association and the South Asian Bar Association of New York.
The Committee convened to determine whether candidates were qualified for the judicial office using a three-tiered rating system of “qualified,” “well qualified,” and "exceptionally well qualified." A candidate was rated “Qualified” if the candidate satisfied the basic criteria to be considered a viable candidate for the judicial position sought. A rating of “Well Qualified” was given if the candidate met the basic criteria and demonstrated a level of skill, experience, sound judgment, and excellence in his or her professional career, which would sustain or improve the quality of the bench or judicial position sought. An “Exceptionally Well Qualified” rating reflects that the candidate has fulfilled the requirements necessary for a “Well Qualified” rating and demonstrated outstanding accomplishments. The ratings were decided during a closed-door vote after review of the each candidate’s background, professional ability, experience, character, judicial temperament, and other pertinent qualities. The Panel’s findings were as follows:
New York Supreme Court – Bronx County
Hon. Larry S. Schachner – Exceptionally Well Qualified
New York Supreme Court – Kings County
Hon. Desmond A. Green – Exceptionally Well Qualified
New York Supreme Court – New York County
Hon. Peter H. Moulton – Exceptionally Well Qualified
Judge of the Civil Court, 1st Municipal District, Bronx County
Lucianna Locorotondo – Well Qualified
Armando Montano – Well Qualified
Judge of the Civil Court, Kings County
Hon. ShawnDya L. Simpson – Exceptionally Well Qualified
Judge of the Civil Court, New York County
Dakota Ramseur – Well Qualified
Judge of the Civil Court, 2nd Municipal Disctrict, New York County
Hon. Kathryn E. Freed – Exceptionally Well Qualified
Hon. Marcy S. Friedman – Exceptionally Well Qualified
Adam Silvera – Well Qualified
For more information contact R. Nadine Fontaine at [email protected].
AABANY Law Review Announces Winners of the Scholarly Paper Prize and Student Note Competition
The AABANY Law Review is pleased to announce the winners of its inaugural Scholarly Paper Prize and Student Note Competition:
- Greg Robinson (Professor of History at l’Université du Québec à Montréal) for his article, In Defense of Birthright Citizenship: The JACL, the NAACP, and Regan v. King. The Article tells the story of Regan v. King, in which West Coast nativists brought suit in federal court to disenfranchise American citizens of Japanese origin. The case reaffirmed the birthright citizenship of all Americans (first recognized by the Supreme Court in its 1898 decision Wong Kim Ark) and represents a pioneering instanceof multiracial coalition-building as the NAACP allied itself with the Japanese American Citizens League to fight for their constitutional rights.
- Daniel Bowman (Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law) for his note, Justifying Disparate Impact: Why a Discriminatory Effect Standard is Essential to the Fair Housing Act. Daniel’s note examines the historical development of the disparate impact standard under Title VII and the Fair Housing Act, and considers the upcoming Supreme Court case of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., which will address the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.
In addition to a cash prize, both authors’ pieces will appear in the AABANY Law Review’s winter issue, and Prof. Robinson will be speaking about his paper at the NAPABA Northeast Regional/AABANY Fall Conference. Congratulations to both, and thanks to everyone who submitted! For more information about the AABANY Law Review, please visit http://www.aabanylawreview.org/ or contact [email protected].
Special Offer for AABANY Members–Get NYCLA Member Rate for NY Civil Practice Guide
Special Offer for Asian American Bar Association-NY Members–Get NYCLA Member Rate
Attorneys’ Guide to Civil Practice in the New York County Supreme Court–Print and eBook Available
An essential tool for civil practice in Manhattan, the Attorneys’ Guide, produced by NYCLA’s Supreme Court Committee, provides important information practitioners need to know in order to master the complexities of the New York County Supreme Court in a painless but effective way.
Take advantage of NYCLA Member Pricing–Purchase the Guide–at a full 50% discount off the non-member price
- Click here to purchase a print copy of the Guide at the NYCLA member rate of $50
- Click here to purchase the Guide as an eBook at the NYCLA member rate of $40*
*The eReader versions of this publication can be accessed using either an eReader or eReader app such as Nook (which is Barnes & Noble’s format) or Kindle (which is Amazon’s format). These apps are readily available through the app store for most mobile devices including tablets and phones. eReader versions of this publication cannot be opened using any other software, including but not limited to Good Reader or Adobe. We do not offer this publication in PDF format. Please email Natalie Wimbush at[email protected] for assistance obtaining the eBook format you need.
Highlights include:
• Comprehensive listing of locations and phone number of all Justices, offices, and Office of the County Clerk along with descriptions of each back office and roles
• Recent developments that will directly affect practitioners
• Court’s approach to preliminary conferences and other conferences
• Differentiated Case Management and the discovery process, pre-trial proceedings, Mediation I and II, and other ADR projects
• Key litigation-related functions of the County Clerk’s Office
• Extensive biographical information about and photographs of Justices
• New Chapters on References and Article 81 cases.
Amistad Long Island Black Bar Association Expresses Disappointment with the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Opinion
(NEW YORK, June 28, 2013) This week the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling, rendered its opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. __ (Jun. 25, 2013). The Shelby decision involved Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.* Section 4 of the Act established a “coverage formula” to determine which states and local governments properly fall under Section 5 of the Act, and thus were required to get approval before changing their voting laws. The justices ruled that Section 4 of the Act is unconstitutional, and that the formula, which has been used for decades, can no longer be used to establish preclearance requirements. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who delivered the Court’s opinion stated: “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated “the Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination.” Justice Ginsburg’s dissent articulates the continued need for Section 5 preclearance for those states with poor voting rights records, and noted that in July 2006, the House and Senate passed the reauthorization of preclearance by overwhelming margins (House 390 to 33; Senate 98 to 0).
The ruling has already had potentially adverse consequences. Shortly after the decision, Texas announced that a voter identification law that had previously been blocked is now free to take effect immediately. Also, redistricting maps will no longer need federal approval, and “changes in voting procedures in places that had been covered by the law, including those concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to ‘after-the-fact’ litigation.” See “Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act,” New York Times, June 25, 2013.
Attorney General Eric Holder expressed his disappointment in the decision and stated: “Let me be very clear: we will not hesitate to take swift enforcement action – using every legal tool that remains available to us – against any jurisdiction that seeks to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s ruling by hindering eligible citizens’ full and free exercise of the [voting] franchise."
Amistad echoes the disappointment of the nation’s leaders with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Considering that Long Island is the home of the seminal voting rights decision Goosby v. Town of Hempstead, the organization would be remiss if we did not declare our opposition to rulings that potentially marginalize voters of color. In Goosby, a federal judge ordered the Town of Hempstead to replace its at-large voting system with six geographic districts, stating that the system then in place “invidiously excludes Blacks from effective participation in political life.” The Goosby Second Circuit decision is available at this link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1437220.html.
Amistad, an affiliate of the National Bar Association (the “NBA”) fully intends to stand alongside the NBA in its efforts to bear pressure on policy makers and on Congress to enact a viable Section 5 coverage mechanism that deals with continuing impediments to the fundamental right to vote. We stand in solidarity with organizations committed to ensuring that the right to vote is not impeded for anyone, particularly various members of communities in our backyard.
Submitted on behalf of the
Amistad Institute of the Amistad Long Island Black Bar Association
*The Court’s complete opinion is available at this link: http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/717250-supreme-courts-voting-rights-act-decision.html
****
The Amistad Long Island Black Bar Association was founded in 1996. Formerly, the organization was known as the Amistad Suffolk Black Bar Association before it expanded to both the Nassau and Suffolk regions. Amistad was created to foster community, professional development, and growth among attorneys of color in the Long Island area.
Amistad is an affiliate of the National Bar Association.
STATEMENT OF THE ASIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT’S RECENT VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION
The Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY) urges the United States Congress to reinstate the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, Section 4, that were invalidated this past Tuesday, June 25, 2013 by the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.
Shelby eliminates the preclearance requirement for certain states or areas in which discrimination had historically been found to exist. Preclearance required covered states and jurisdictions to submit all changes affecting voting and elections for preapproval by the U.S. Department of Justice. The decision in Shelby will likely lead to legal sanctioning of efforts to undermine voting rights.
This ruling hits home. Certain New York counties including New York, Kings and the Bronx were areas for which preclearance had been required, based on a prior history of voter discrimination. The Shelby ruling clears the way for the reinstatement of discriminatory practices, such as efforts to restrict access to voting sites or attempts to gerrymander voting districts to dilute the voting power of Asian Americans in New York’s Chinatown or African Americans in Harlem. The profound impact of such practices on the voting rights and electoral aspirations of the affected minority voters in those areas cannot be overstated.
The record the Supreme Court considered contains ample evidence that voting rights discrimination is alive and well in 2013 as it was in 1964. Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion chronicles that evidence.
The unfettered right to vote is a precondition of representative democracy. Retrenchment on that right undermines many other rights such as the right to free speech. Until Shelby, the necessity of a strong Voting Rights Act was universally recognized.
Congress must act and exercise its power to provide the checks and balances that our Constitution established when the Founders formed our union to ensure a balanced government. Voting rights are under attack and we urge Congress and the Administration to take prompt action to defend this most fundamental civil right.
###
AABANY was formed in 1989 as a not-for-profit corporation to represent the interests of New York Asian American attorneys, judges, law professors, legal professionals, paralegals and law students. The mission of AABANY is to improve the study and practice of law, and the fair administration of justice for all by ensuring the meaningful participation of Asian Americans in the legal profession.
NAPABA Applauds Marriage Equality Decisions
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 26, 2013
Contact: Emily Chatterjee
(202) 775-9555
WASHINGTON – In two watershed marriage equality decisions announced today, the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, and found that proponents of Proposition 8 in Perry v. Hollingsworth lack standing to appeal the federal district court decision, which struck down the amendment. The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) has long supported marriage equality, and joined amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court as well as in lower court proceedings in both cases.
“Today is a historic day for our nation as we move one step closer to equality for all Americans,” said Wendy C. Shiba, president of NAPABA. “As a Californian, I am especially proud that NAPABA has supported marriage equality in Windsor and Perry, and in many other cases, and we look forward to the implementation of both decisions.”
Windsor challenged DOMA, a federal law that denies legally married same-sex couples the same federal benefits provided to heterosexual spouses. Justice Kennedy delivered the 5-4 decision and held that “though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
In Perry, Chief Justice Roberts led the 5-4 Court in dismissing an appeal to reinstate California’s Proposition 8, a voter-passed measure outlawing marriage between same-sex couples because of lack of standing. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion “[w]e have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to. We decline to do so for the first time here.”
###
The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) is the national association of Asian Pacific American attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students. NAPABA represents the interests of over 40,000 attorneys and 66 state and local Asian Pacific American bar associations. Its members include solo practitioners, large firm lawyers, corporate counsel, legal service and non-profit attorneys, and lawyers serving at all levels of government. NAPABA continues to be a leader in addressing civil rights issues confronting Asian Pacific American communities. Through its national network of committees and affiliates, NAPABA provides a strong voice for increased diversity of the federal and state judiciaries, advocates for equal opportunity in the workplace, works to eliminate hate crimes and anti-immigrant sentiment, and promotes the professional development of people of color in the legal profession.
//static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/picasaweb.googleusercontent.com/slideshow.swf
On June 7, AABANY took part in the 10th anniversary Caren Aronowitz Unity in Diversity celebration at the New York State Supreme Court Rotunda. This annual event is one of the highlights of the year at the courthouse, bringing together bar groups, community organizations and unions to celebrate diversity and promote greater understanding and tolerance within the courts and the wider community.
AABANY and participating organizations provided delicious food representing the diverse cultures of New York. AABANY’s table was filled with dim sum items from Nom Wah and was easily among the most popular tables at the event.
Thanks to our interns, Stephanie Yu and Max Zimmerman for staffing the table, along with interns from the chambers of Judge Doris Ling-Cohan.