<?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>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Judge Leonie Brinkema</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/judge-leonie-brinkema/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 15:22:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Contest Ends Over Telecom Software Patents&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/contest-ends-over-telecom-software-patents/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/contest-ends-over-telecom-software-patents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 14:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court grants summary judgment to defendant, an Irish company with U.S. headquarters in Reston, on all patent infringement claims asserted by plaintiff, an Israeli company that sells software portfolios to telecommunications companies,  and summary judgment for plaintiff on defendant’s counterclaims for inequitable conduct. Although there remain disputed issues of material fact [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/05/22/contest-ends-over-telecom-software-patents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Tort Claim Against FCA Defense Lawyer&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-tort-claim-against-fca-defense-lawyer/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-tort-claim-against-fca-defense-lawyer/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=74004</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses plaintiff’s complaint against defendant lawyer who represented plaintiff’s former employer in plaintiff’s False Claims Act suit, seeking to hold the lawyer liable for alleged misrepresentations the lawyer made over three years ago during that FCA litigation. Plaintiff seeks at least $3 million in damages under theories of abuse of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/24/no-tort-claim-against-fca-defense-lawyer/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Trims Costs for Winning Party&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/court-trims-costs-for-winning-party/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/court-trims-costs-for-winning-party/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73768</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court takes a close look at plaintiff’s request for $132,137.90 and awards $89,207.90 by deducting claimed expenses such as videography fees for depositions, computer animations and “metadata extraction.” On Sept. 27, 2012, the court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to defendant Openet Telecom Inc. and summary judgment of no inequitable conduct [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/16/court-trims-costs-for-winning-party/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge will determine Renoir painting’s owner</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/15/judge-will-determine-renoir-paintings-owner/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/15/judge-will-determine-renoir-paintings-owner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:45:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Associated Press</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News In Brief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73877</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ALEXANDRIA (AP) A federal judge will seek to unravel an art mystery and determine the rightful owner of a napkin-sized painting by French impressionist Pierre-Auguste Renoir that a Virginia woman says she bought at a flea market for $7. The ownership is in dispute after documents were uncovered showing a Baltimore museum reported the painting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/04/15/judge-will-determine-renoir-paintings-owner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defaulting Borrower Ran Up Attorney’s Fees&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/defaulting-borrower-ran-up-attorneys-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/defaulting-borrower-ran-up-attorneys-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Estate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lender who won summary judgment ordering the borrower to pay $672,349 on a defaulted loan on investment property also is entitled to attorney’s fees of $99,094 and costs of $152,530; the Alexandria U.S. District Court denies the borrower’s request that a decision on fees be stayed pending appeal of the underlying case. The loan [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/defaulting-borrower-ran-up-attorneys-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Parses Fees, Costs in Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/court-parses-fees-costs-in-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/court-parses-fees-costs-in-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=73278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court will reduce an award of costs to plaintiffs by deducting excessive pro hac vice fees and video deposition costs, but will allow plaintiff to collect $30,480 for costs of converting information into the agreed-upon format and do electronic Bates stamping. Although pro hac vice fees are not listed in the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/03/20/court-parses-fees-costs-in-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dueling Experts in Disney Patent Case&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/dueling-experts-in-disney-patent-case/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/dueling-experts-in-disney-patent-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:08:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this lawsuit by Disney Enterprises Inc. challenging the U.S. PTO’s rejection of Disney’s ‘772 patent application, the Alexandria U.S. District Court says Disney may not use an expert opinion that came too late under the court’s discovery schedule. The patent examiner issued a final rejection of all the ’772 application’s pending claims on April [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/25/dueling-experts-in-disney-patent-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sports Bar Has No Coverage for Patron Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/07/sports-bar-has-no-coverage-for-patron-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/07/sports-bar-has-no-coverage-for-patron-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 15:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Personal Injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Plaintiff owners of a sports bar do not have coverage for a premises liability suit filed by a former patron who alleges he was injured in a fight at the bar during a billiards tournament in 2008; the Alexandria U.S. District Court says the owners’ policy clearly excludes coverage for injuries arising from assault and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/07/sports-bar-has-no-coverage-for-patron-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restitution Has Priority Over Attorney’s Fees&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/restitution-has-priority-over-attorneys-fees/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/restitution-has-priority-over-attorneys-fees/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jan 2013 15:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Creditor's Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A law firm that won $30,000 compensatory and $15,000 punitive damages in their client’s suit alleging he was defamed as a dog trainer by allegations of animal cruelty, as well as an award of $79,786.42 in attorney’s fees and costs, may intervene in this action by the government to garnish the client’s judgment, but the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/01/07/restitution-has-priority-over-attorneys-fees/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Author’s Suit Against Publisher Dismissed&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/authors-suit-against-publisher-dismissed/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/authors-suit-against-publisher-dismissed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:48:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Leonie Brinkema]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Eastern District]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses plaintiff’s pro se suit alleging defendant publisher breached a contract to publish plaintiff’s manuscript for a book called “Saving the Company. Because plaintiff’s manuscript was published on Dec. 26, 2006, any breach of contract claim had to be filed within five years of the alleged breach, or by Dec. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/07/authors-suit-against-publisher-dismissed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
