Object Lessons

Last week, I was at the Federal Circuit arguing a case. While waiting for my case to be called, I watched two other arguments. As usual, one was a patent case. It had to do with whether a company trying to sell bingo-style games had infringed a patent. I started wondering if the trial had included expert witnesses on bingo. I suspect that testimony would likely come from senior citizen women and Catholic priests. The second case involved attorney's fees in an appeal by a veteran who was originally denied benefits for injuries due to exposure to Agent Orange but got the case remanded for further investigation.

This post is primarily for my students and associates in my office (who I know are reading this blog). The message is simple: Preparation Matters! The guy arguing the veteran's case did a fine job. He had a folksy country-lawyer way about him and was obviously comfortable before the court. The issue was whether a remand makes the veteran a prevailing party. The Court seemed skeptical, but the lawyer held his own. Until a fact question came up.

Toward the end of rebuttal, a judge asked the lawyer whether the first part of his client's claim had been denied. The lawyer admitted that he did not know but pointed out that the claim is unitary and that the individual elements cannot be denied separately. The judge jumped all over him. "Really," the judge asked, "you don't know?" Another judge asked whether the case was being handled pro bono. It was not. The first judge circled back, "How could you not know?" Turns out that the lawyer making the argument was filling in for a colleague with a medical issue in the family. That did not sway the Court.

The judge then asked government counsel the status of the claim. She stated that the claim had been heard and was being appealed administratively. Then agency counsel, who was with her, corrected that answer and stated that the case was still under review by the regional office of whatever organization reviews these things.

It was brutal to watch. I think the lawyer did a good job, really. He knew the law and his theory made the question irrelevant, since it is all one claim. But, not knowing something from the record is going to create a bad situation if it comes up. This was a classic example, if a bit unfair, of being caught with one's pants down.

It is a simple thing to say: Facts matter. The record matters. Don't say anything you can't support with a cite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more