Welcome to My New "Pop-Up" Restaurant!

It suddenly occurred to me -- much like my fledgling entry into the food truck craze -- that I should immediately open up a "pop-up" restaurant.

Here are the broad contours of my concept:

1.  Hip hop music will be banned.

2.  I plan to only serve food from Wisconsin.

(So I guess it's a pop-up lutefisk 'n cheese shop?)

3.  It will be located right next to my food truck.

Wish me luck kids, but then again -- how could it go wrong?

In other news, the talented Mr. and Mrs. Markus whooped it up on eighty-seven (or eight, but who's counting?) fed lawyers and scored a big win on behalf of his client before Magistrate Judge Torres.

Other than continually referring to himself in the plural ("our findings," "we" etc. -- it's ok, I do it too) it's a thorough and well-reasoned R&R.

Finally, we offer congrats (see?) to the Most Effective Lawyers in town -- if you did not win, that means you have a chance to be more effective next year -- that's what New Year's resolutions are all about.

Announcing the All-New SFL Whole Wheat Pasta Bolognaise Foodtruck!

I've decided it's about time I jump right in and tap into the food truck mania that is sweeping South Florida.

And, like any good marketer, I am focusing on a niche market.

In fact, my niche market is exceedingly small -- I plan to park my truck in only one location, 1000 Brickell Ave, and I plan to serve only one item: whole wheat pasta bolognaise.

Why, you may ask, have I focused my new food truck business so narrowly?

Well let's just say I have my reasons, but I assure you they have absolutely nothing to do with certain food rituals observed by certain attorneys at La Loggia:

American Bar Association members and committee heads Melanie Damian and Peter F. Valori were there too, ritually ordering the whole-wheat pasta bolognaise while working hard to sway Florida Bar Business Law chair Michael J. Heiger into steering a portion of his leadership efforts toward the bar organization’s national arm. Heiger, apparently familiar with the payoffs of preparation, arrived at lunch armed with one of his young associates, whom he seemed to be offering up in his place.

"[R]itually ordering the whole-wheat pasta bolognaise"?

Thanks for the tip!

BTW Mike -- nice touch to offer up an unnamed and not-worthy-of-being-mentioned-in-this-article young associate as a sacrificial lamb -- we are talking about the ABA, after all!

Microsoft Billionaire Foiled By Iqbal!

Boy this lame-duck Congress is actually getting a few things done -- (a few) new federal judges even!

So what's the status of efforts to roll back Twombly or Iqbal?

Senator Spector's bill is D.O.A., as is the House version.

That's good news for some, except Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen:

A judge has dismissed Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s lawsuit against Google, Apple, Facebook and others for patent infringement.
Back in August, Allen originally claimed that 11 different companies, including YouTube (), Netflix and AOL, had violated four different patents associated with web search and e-commerce. These patents are tied to both software and business methods.

Now, however, a court has sided with Google et al. in a motion to dismiss the case, saying Allen’s claims were too vague and lacked “adequate factual detail to satisfy the dictates of Twombly and Iqbal” — two cases that are precedents for requiring adequate evidentiary support.

Sheesh, you'd think Allen's lawyers would know how to plead around this standard, but apparently not.

From the Court order:

Plaintiff's complaint does not satisfy Rule 8 or Form 18 because Plaintiff has failed to identify the infringing products or devices with any specificity. The Court and Defendants are left to guess what devices infringe on the four patents. Plaintiff only indicates that Defendants have websites, hardware, and software that infringe on the patents or that they are encouraging third parties to use products that infringe on the patents. This fails to indicate to Defendants which of their myriad products or devices may be at issue. These allegations are insufficient to put Defendants on "notice as to what [they] must defend." McZeal, 501 F.3d at 1357 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 565 n.10). They are also too generic to satisfy Form 18. Plaintiff urges the Court and Defendants to have patience and simply await delivery of the infringement contentions as required by Local Rule. This ignores that Local Rules do not trump the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Supreme Court's mandate in Twombly and Iqbal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(a)(1); Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950, 1953. Plaintiff's complaint is little more than labels and conclusions, which are inadequate under Twombly, Iqbal, and even Form 18. The Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss.

I don't do patent litigation, but I'm not sure a heightened pleading standard made the difference here.

You can read the complaint and judge for yourself.