Mediaboss Marketing

The widow of a disabled veteran shot and killed by deputies serving him with involuntary commitment papers in 2020 filed a federal lawsuit last month against Cumberland Countyand the deputies who shot her husband.

Sabara Fisher-Roberts, wife of Adrian Roberts, 37, filed the action in U.S. District Court on Sept. 3, alleging the deputies illegally entered Roberts' home and "shot him dead" while attempting to serve the order she'd requested.

More: Cumberland County deputy identified in August fatal shooting

Roberts enlisted in the U.S. Army in 2001 and was honorably discharged in 2005 after he was deployed to the Middle East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the lawsuit states.

He was receiving 100% disability from the U.S. Army for issues related to a head injury he sustained while deployed to Iraq and for post-traumatic stress disorder.

In 2012,Roberts began seeking treatment for his mental health issues, which included in-patient stays related to feelings of paranoia.

In October of 2014, he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, auditory hallucinations, PTSD, and depression, the lawsuit states.

Roberts actively continued to seek treatment up until his death in 2020, the lawsuit states.

In June 2020, about two months before his death, Robertshad a virtual visit with the VA for a mental health follow-up and medication management, during whichhe reported that COVID-19 and the riots following the death of George Floyd were causing hypervigilance, paranoiaand flashbacks, the lawsuit states.

In the weeks leading up to his death, the lawsuit states, Roberts was becoming increasingly paranoid and his wife was attempting to get him into treatment

After an unsuccessful attempt by VA mobile crisis unit to make contact with Roberts in order to evaluate him, Fisher-Roberts went to a magistrate to issuean involuntary commitment order, which was to be carried out by the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office.

More: Family vigil held for man killed by sheriff's deputy

Fisher-Roberts informed the magistrate and the Sheriff's Officethat her husband was suffering from multiple mental illnesses and that there were no firearms or other people in the house with her husband, the lawsuit states.

"The magistrate informed Ms. Roberts that she should be present when the deputies go to open the door because 'they cant force their way in,' the complaint.

But while Fisher-Roberts was retrieving a key from a relative to enter the home, the sheriff's office deployed a SWAT team to the house to serve the involuntary commitment order, according to the complaint.

"Defendants (deputies) P.A. Hernandez, P. Sansome, J. Evans, D. Doody, L. Fermin, R. Murphy, R. Stallings, and C. Parker equipped themselves with body armor and M4 assault rifles to serve an involuntary commitment order on a disabled, mentally unstable, unarmed veteran," the lawsuit states.

Upon arrival, deputies determined that Roberts was in the house, but refused to open the door.

"Upon entering the home, the deputies opened fired and killed Adrian Roberts," the complaint states.

According to the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office at the time of the shooting, Roberts allegedly "charged" at the deputies with a machete.

More: Cumberland County deputies shoot man allegedly armed with machete

The lawsuit alleges that the deputies violated Roberts' Fourth Amendment rights by unlawfully entering his house and using "excessive and deadly force" which resulted in Roberts' death.

"The excessive and deadly force used by the Deputy Defendants was not objectively reasonable, justified, nor was it necessary under the circumstances," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also alleges that the deputies violated the Americans With Disabilities Act by failing to "provide reasonable modifications to its policies and practices to accommodate Adrian Roberts disability-related needs when attempting to serve the involuntary commitment order."

Fisher-Roberts is asking fordamages in excess of $10 million.

Crime Reporter Jack Boden can be reached at jboden@gannett.com.

Support local journalism with a subscription to The Fayetteville Observer. Click the "subscribe'' link at the top of this article.

Here is the original post:
Widow of disabled veteran killed by deputies files federal lawsuit - The Fayetteville Observer

The Indiana Department of Child Services won a judgment from the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Indiana on Friday following allegations from a man who claimed a caseworker entered his home to take photos without permission, which resulted in the removal of his children.

Homeowner Iredell Sanders sued DCS in August 2020 after one of its caseworkers, April Monique Jones, entered his house in June 2016 and allegedly took pictures without his consent.

Sanders alleged that after investigating the conditions of his home following Jones visit, DCS removed his children. He therefore argued Jones entry onto his property violated his Fourth Amendment rights because it was without probable cause and consent.

He also sought $124 million in damages in addition to a cease-and-desist order.

Before filing the suit at hand, Sanders filed a similar suit solely against DCS in April 2019, alleging DCS investigated him, took photographs of the home, and questioned his children, which resulted in his children being taken away and being placed with a guardian.

In that case, DCS was granted its motion to dismiss and the Northern District Court found Sanders was barred from suing DCS under the Eleventh Amendment, which the 7th Circuit affirmed.

Sanders pared down the number of defendants in his August 2020 suit from 15 to two, including DCS and Jones. Due to his failure to timely file a response to the defendants motions for judgment on the pleadings, the district court granted the motions and dismissed Sanders case in a Friday decision.

In Iredell Sanders v. Indiana Department of Child Services, April Monique Jones, 3:20-CV-674,the defendants argued multiple claims, including that Sanders claims were barred by res judicata. In ruling for the defendants, the district court found that all three elements of res judicata were met as to both parties.

The district court found that there was a final judgment on the merits in an earlier action and that the dispute in the instant suit arose from the same transaction as that previous suit and was nearly identical to its factual allegations. Itfound the same litigants were involved because DCS was a party in the previous litigation and Jones is in privity with DCS.

Finally, the court also concluded because Sanders explicitly referenced Jones title, alleged actions of Jones which involve her doing her job as a caseworker, and sought injunctive relief as a remedy, that Jones was being sued in her official capacity alone.

Because all three elements of res judicata have been met as to both parties, the Court finds that Mr. Sanders claims against both DCS and Ms. Jones cannot be relitigated, Chief Judge Jon DeGuilio wrote.

Visit link:
DCS wins judgment following allegations of caseworker taking unpermitted photos - Indiana Lawyer

Often considered a fast-track to resolution of a dispute over patent ownership, Chinas administrative adjudication mechanism has proved to be an efficient and efficacious way to resolve patent infringement issues. Chengda Li explains how it works and why more and more patentees are using it.

With the newly amended China Patent Law that became effective on June 1, 2021, the objective is to, more effectively, protect the legitimate rights and interest of patentees.

In China, there is a so-called dual-track scheme to enforce a patent, namely the administrative route and the judicial route. In case of a patent infringement dispute, the patentee or interested party may file a lawsuit in the Peoples Court or request a local intellectual property (IP) administrative office handle the dispute under Article 65 of the Patent Law. As stipulated in Article 70.1 of the Patent Law, for a patent infringement dispute that has a major impact nationwide, the patentee or the interested party can even directly request the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) handle it. The dual-track scheme is also applicable to patent linkage disputes in China. To proceed with a drug patent dispute case arising from patent linkage, there are two routes to go. The first one is to take civil action before the courts and the second one is to file an administrative adjudication request before CNIPA.

The administrative adjudicative route

The basic legislation for using the administrative adjudication mechanism for patent dispute resolution, in addition to the Patent Law, is the Measures for Patent Administrative Enforcement, which were originally enacted in 2001 and were later amended in 2010 and again in 2015. The Measures prescribe fundamental rules of administrative adjudication for patent infringement disputes and patent administrative enforcement. The Measures also set out the primary procedures and standards for handling administrative adjudication cases. Now the Measures are still in effect.

According to the Measures, the local IP administrative offices of each province, as well as the CNIPA (which was previously known as the State Intellectual Property Office, or SIPO) are responsible for both administrative adjudication for patent infringement disputes and patent administrative enforcement. It is to be noted that in the newly amended Patent Law, Article 69 differentiates between patent administrative enforcement authorities and administrative adjudication authorities. The former refers to Administrative Offices for Market Regulation, while the latter to the CNIPA and local IP administrative offices of each province. Pursuant to new Article 69, patent administrative enforcement authorities are granted stronger administrative powers than administrative adjudication authorities. Specifically, an administrative adjudication authority may conduct questioning of the involved parties and examination of sites and products relating to the infringement in a patent infringement dispute, whereas a patent administrative enforcement authority may additionally seize or detain counterfeit products and conduct evidence examination and reproduction. It can be expected that the Measures will be amended in the near future to be in line with the newly amended Patent Law.

To further strengthen the protection of patent rights and improve the efficiency and quality of administrative adjudication concerning patent infringement disputes, the CNIPA issued a more detailed Guideline on December 26, 2019, called the Guidelines for Handling Cases of Administrative Adjudication Concerning Patent Infringement Disputes (hereinafter referred to as the Guidelines). The Guidelines clarify the basic concepts of administrative adjudication on patent infringement disputes, including jurisdiction, avoidance, agency, delivery, case handling procedures such as case docketing, examination, evidence investigation, and rules of evidence. The Guidelines also explain the infringement determination of various types of patents and the relevant principles of infringement determination.

On May 28, 2021, to better handle administrative adjudication cases of patent infringement disputes that have a significant nationwide impact, CNIPA released the Administrative Adjudication Measures for Major Patent Infringement Disputes. The Measures went into force June 1, 2021, along with the amended Patent Law. The Measures provide an explanation of the categories of cases that would fall under the purview of Article 70.1 of the Patent Law. Per Article 3 of the Measures, any of the following situations is a major patent infringement dispute:

(1) Involving major public interests;

(2) Significantly affecting the development of the industry;

(3) Major cases involving cross-provincial administrative regions;

(4) Other patent infringement disputes that may cause significant influence.

The Measures set out detailed guidelines for the administrative handling of such cases by CNIPA, including the procedures of oral hearing and the technical investigator system, which is similar to procedures in a civil litigation before a court. The Measures also clarify that the only remedy available is an injunction, with no damages. Appeals of a decision of CNIPA can be filed before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court within 15 days of the ruling but enforcement of an injunction will not be suspended during the appeal process. Of note, the Measures prescribe that, during the administrative adjudication, if the involved patent is declared invalid by the Reexamination and Invalidation Examination Division of the CNIPA, the administrative adjudication case may be terminated. Where there is evidence to prove that the decision to invalidate the patent has been revoked by an effective administrative judgment, the patentee may file another administrative adjudication request. Considering that the administrative authority handling administrative adjudication cases of patent infringement disputes and the Reexamination and Invalidation Examination Division are both sub-departments of CNIPA, it is seen that, in the future, patent infringement disputes may be settled in a more convenient and cost-effective manner through the administrative adjudication route. Moreover, joint trial of administrative adjudication and patent invalidation procedures may be possible within CNIPA.

Technical investigators

Turning to the technical investigator system, it is believed that the introduction of the technical investigator into patent infringement cases is beneficial and helpful, since most patent infringement dispute cases are difficult and complex with professional and technical challenges. On May 7, 2021, CNIPA issued the Provisions on the Participation of Technical Investigators in Administrative Adjudication of Patent and Integrated Circuit Layout Design Infringement Disputes (Interim) (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions). Issuance of the provisions follows the Supreme Peoples Courts regulation on technical investigators for IP-related litigations. The provisions stipulate in detail the roles and responsibilities of technical investigators. According to the Provisions, both the CNIPA and the local IP administrative offices may assign technical investigators to participate in administrative adjudication cases of patent infringement disputes. The CNIPA is responsible for building a national technical investigator database and selecting and managing the technical investigators. The local IP administrative offices may select and manage the technical investigators in their own jurisdictions but may also apply for the deployment of technical investigators from the national technical investigator database to participate in its administrative adjudication activities. The provisions set out that the technical investigators may participate in the oral hearings and ask questions to the parties and other relevant personnel. The technical investigators may also attend meetings of the collegiate panel as nonvoting delegates. Recently, the CNIPA announced that a first panel of 35 technical investigators has been elected, covering technical fields such as machinery, electricity, communications, medical biology, chemistry, optoelectronics, materials, and design.

Most recently, on July 5, 2021, the CNIPA released the Administrative Adjudication Measures for Early Resolution Mechanisms for Drug Patent Disputes. Together with the above-mentioned administrative adjudication measures for patent infringement dispute, China has established its characteristic and comprehensive administrative adjudication system. The Measures clarify the basic concepts of administrative adjudication for early resolution mechanisms for drug patent disputes (the so called patent linkage system), including jurisdiction, parties, case handling procedures such as case docketing, examination, mediation, and oral hearing. The Measures also explain the relation with patent invalidation and the parallel proceedings with civil litigation.

Specifically, per Article 4 of the Measures, no successful prior lodging of a civil action before a court is one of the preconditions for filing a request for administrative adjudication with CNIPA. However, successful filing of administrative adjudication case with CNIPA can neither preclude from filing nor stay the civil action according to the rules of the Supreme Peoples Court. With respect to invalidation, the Measures clarify that all the claims in suit of the patent being invalidated, either before or during the administrative adjudication, can be a ground for dismissal of the administrative adjudication; in case of a part of the claims in suit of the patent being invalidated, the administrative adjudication will be based on those claims that are maintained valid. But it is not clear where the CNIPAs invalidation decision is appealed to the court, whether status of the claims here would be determined by the CNIPAs invalidation decision, or would rely on the final judgment from the appeal.

Is administrative adjudication a fast-track?

Generally speaking, the administrative adjudication route is much faster and less expensive than civil litigation. When handling patent infringement disputes, the local IP administrative office is required to complete the adjudication within three months from the date of case docketing. If the case is particularly complicated and the time limit needs to be extended, it shall be approved by the person in charge of the local IP administrative office. The approved extension shall not exceed one month at most. It can thus be seen that the administrative adjudication route is a fast-track mechanism for patent infringement dispute resolution. More and more patentees, especially small and microenterprises, choose this route in case of an infringement dispute. According to a statistic of CNIPA, in June 2021, there were as many as 4,257 administrative adjudication patent infringement dispute cases filed before local IP administrative offices in China, among which the IP Administrative Office of Zhejiang Province handled the most, up to 2,450 cases. It appears that the administrative adjudication route is becoming a preferred way to resolve patent infringement disputes, especially for those infringers that are located in a developed province.

A most famous administrative adjudication case in China may be Shenzhen Baili Marketing Service Co. Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (the Baili case). In May 2016, the Beijing IP Office issued a decision affirming that Apples iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus infringed a Chinese design patent ZL201430009113.9, owned by Shenzhen Baili Marketing Service Co. Ltd. The Beijing IP Office thus rendered a ban, ordering Apple to stop selling the iPhones. Upon the issuance of this decision, the decision itself, together with Beijing IP office, came under the spotlight. Apple immediately brought forth an administrative lawsuit before the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to challenge the administrative decision. On March 24, 2017, Beijing Intellectual Property Court rendered its first-instance judgment overruling the administrative order by the Beijing IP Office. In the meanwhile, Beijing Intellectual Property Court also ruled directly over the civil dispute between Bali and Apple and reached a non-infringement judgment in favor of Apple.

Conclusion

Administrative adjudication has proved to be an efficient and efficacious mechanism for patent infringement dispute resolution in China. However, some experts have been questioning whether the bifurcated approach, the administrative adjudication and civil litigation dual-track scheme in China, will cause confusion and inconsistent judgments.

In the fourth amendment to Chinas Patent Law, the dual-track scheme has been kept and even extended to disputes involving open licenses and patent linkage disputes. The administrative adjudication mechanism should be encouraged if the primary purpose is to stop patent infringement earlier without focusing on potential damages. If, however, one of the purposes is to obtain payment of damages, it is advisable to go with the court proceedings to settle patent infringement disputes.

Last but not least, for a patent dispute that has a significant impact, it may be advisable to file both a civil action and an administrative adjudication request. But it should be remembered that the administrative adjudication request must be filed simultaneously with or before the civil action; otherwise, the administrative adjudication request will be rejected.

Original post:
The fast-track to patent dispute resolution: The administrative adjudication mechanism - Lexology

Monday, new ministers are expected to be sworn in before His Majesty King Abdullah II, as part of the awaited amendment to the government of Bisher Al-Khasawneh.

This came a day after members of Khasawnehs government submitted their resignations, in preparation for the ministerial reshuffle.

Here is the expected list of the new ministers:

-Faisal Al-Shboul, Minister of State for Media Affairs

-Wafaa Bani Mustafa, Minister of State for Legal Affairs

-Khairy Amr, Minister of Investment

-Haifa Al-Najjar Minister of Culture, succeeding Ali Al-Ayed

-Youssef Al-Shamali, Minister of Industry and Trade

-Saleh Al-Kharabsheh, Minister of Energy

-Nayef Istitieh as Minister of Labor

-Wajih Owais, Minister of Education

-Muawiya Al-Radaydah, Minister of Environment

Notably, this is the fourth amendment to the Khasawneh government, the last of which was on March 29 of this year.

His first amendment to the government was made on Dec. 2, 2020, while the second was on March 7, 2021, and the third was on March 29, 2021.

Go here to see the original:
New ministers expected to be sworn in Monday - Roya News English

What this suggests is that a new round of constitutional revisions might be possible in the not-too-distant future.

Our national charter has been reformed and its principles renewed in four waves of constitutional change that occurred during the most turbulent times in American history. The first was from 1789 to 1804, when the founding generation added a dozen amendments in a 15-year period. Chief among them was the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments, adopted in a single bundle to reassure skeptics that a strong national government could be tempered with respect for individual liberty. They also adopted the 11th and 12th Amendments that, respectively, limited citizens lawsuits against states and fixed some defects in the Electoral College.

Then all was quiet on the constitutional front for 61 years, until after the Civil War. Between 1865 and 1870, Republican lawmakers used six years of supermajority control of Congress to drive a second era of amendments that abolished slavery, promised equal citizenship for 4 million newly freed African Americans and barred racial discrimination in voting. Taken together, these amendments laid a second founding for a nation sundered by war. They gave Congress robust new powers to remedy racial injustice while imposing meaningful limits on the excesses of state governments.

And then there was another four decades of polarization and gridlock, marked by the pervasive corruption and vast inequities of the Gilded Age. Eventually, the political pendulum swung and brought a progressive political coalition to power. At the prodding of social movements from the populists to the suffragists to the temperance warriors, lawmakers sought to reverse the extravagance of the previous era. Between 1909 and 1920, Progressive Era reformers added four amendments that authorized the income tax, provided for the popular election of senators, launched Prohibition and extended the franchise to women. The spectacular failure of the nationwide liquor ban notwithstanding (the 21st amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933), these amendments established the foundation for the modern U.S. government.

Finally, a fourth wave, inspired by the political activism of the 1960s civil rights era, added three voting rights amendments to the Constitution: presidential electors for the District of Columbia, abolition of the poll tax, and the lowering of the voting age to 18. A fourth amendment, the 25th, updated and clarified the rules of presidential and vice presidential succession amid the doomsday fears of the nuclear age. The last of this wave was the 26th Amendment, the voting age measure, ratified in 1971.

Today, we find ourselves five decades into the latest dry spell. After the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1980s, many progressives concluded that the Constitutions arduous amending process is not worth the effort. For their part, conservative activists have launched campaigns to win a balanced budget amendment and other ideological policies, which has only bolstered a sense among many that its unwise and even dangerous to tinker with the framers handiwork.

But this sense of defeatism is not new. In 1904, the Washington Post dismissed reformers amendatory schemes, offering the hard-boiled take that our fundamental law is practically unamendable by peaceful and regular methods. And yet, just a half-decade later, that pessimistic prognosis was proven wrong when Congress proposed the first of the Progressive Era amendments.

The presence of certain factors that have prompted past generations of Americans to push for constitutional amendments suggests that a new wave may already be building. Discontent over controversial Supreme Court rulings, for instance, has proven to be a predictable galvanizer of amending activity in previous eras. In fact, seven amendments were motivated by the desire to reverse high court decisions. Today the amendment option is on the table for activists working to overrule Supreme Court decisions such as Citizens United, which has allowed corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns.

During periods of gridlock, states sometimes look for workarounds for some of the Constitutions most problematic provisions, and that experimentation is another driver of constitutional amendments. In the early 20th century, when the Senate blocked an amendment giving voters the right to directly elect its members (a power originally given to state legislatures), reformers in the states responded with measures such as the Oregon Plan, which allowed voters to express their Senate preference in a popular referendum. By establishing a de facto system of popular election in much of the country, they forced the Senates hand.

In a similar vein, some states today are pushing to circumvent the Electoral College through the adoption of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which would award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote an innovative reform that could lay the groundwork for an amendment to change how we choose the president. Even the Equal Rights Amendment, introduced nearly a century ago, might be back on the agenda thanks to state lawmakers who have revived the effort to ratify it.

It may be hard to imagine, but todays political impasse may eventually give way to a new governing coalition. Look at the Gilded Age a century ago, when mounting social problems fueled a rare consensus for reform. Then, as now, economic inequality was widening as restraints on corporate power eroded and moneyed interests dominated our elections. The nation was polarized along regional lines that mirror todays red state-blue state divide. Immigration was changing the country to the alarm of traditionalists. Elections were won by narrow margins, producing gridlock. And all the while, a conservative Supreme Court stood in the way of needed change. In time, the pressure for reform caused a dramatic leftward swing in national sentiment that few saw coming an earthquake that divided the Republicans, lifted the Democrats and led to the adoption of four amendments after years of fruitless advocacy.

That all sounds a lot like 2021. The country has been going through demographic and economic changes comparable to those in the Gilded Age and a new, diverse generation of voters is on the rise. Like their predecessors in the early 20th century, the new generation has decidedly progressive politics and is leading important social movements.

So theres hope for our Constitution and the political system it governs. While todays partisan rancor and gridlock may currently thwart important national reforms, they may also signal the coming of a new era of constitutional change that could kick-start our countrys journey toward a more perfect Union.

Read the original here:
History Teaches that Constitutional Reforms Come in Waves. We May Be Approaching One Now. - POLITICO