<?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>MVALaw Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.mvalaw.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com</link>
	<description>Just another Blogs.mvalaw.com weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:59:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
		<item>
		<title>New Importance of Meeting Section 101 Requirements</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/2012/04/30/new-importance-on-meeting-section-101-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/2012/04/30/new-importance-on-meeting-section-101-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:59:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emmett Weindruch</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IP Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/?p=261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., No. 10-1150.  In this case, the Court considered the validity of two patents belonging to Prometheus with claims directed towards th...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/2012/04/30/new-importance-on-meeting-section-101-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Preventing Personal Liability for the Missteps of the Limited Liability Company:  5 Critical Take Away Points From the North Carolina Courts</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/04/13/preventing-personal-liability-for-the-missteps-of-the-limited-liability-company-5-critical-take-away-points-from-the-north-carolina-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/04/13/preventing-personal-liability-for-the-missteps-of-the-limited-liability-company-5-critical-take-away-points-from-the-north-carolina-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:29:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[   Members, managers, directors, and executives of limited liability companies (“LLC”) are provided protections under North Carolina law which limit their personal responsibility for obligations incurred by the LLC.  This limitation includes liabilities incurred for professional negligence, malpractice, and other wrongdoing attributable to the LLC and other employees or members of the LLC.  There is, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/04/13/preventing-personal-liability-for-the-missteps-of-the-limited-liability-company-5-critical-take-away-points-from-the-north-carolina-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unreasonable Delay in the Age of E-Discovery: The Zubulake “Reasonable Anticipation”   Standard Applied in State Court</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/27/unreasonable-delay-in-the-age-of-e-discovery-the-zubulake-reasonable-anticipation-standard-applied-in-state-court/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/27/unreasonable-delay-in-the-age-of-e-discovery-the-zubulake-reasonable-anticipation-standard-applied-in-state-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:25:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=113</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the age of e-discovery, businesses across the nation have been challenged with seemingly insurmountable hurdles when facing litigation.  The costs of conducting e-discovery can be extraordinarily high, given the volumes of data often at issue in complex commercial litigation.  The recent case VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar Satellite L.L.C., 2012 NY Slip Op [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/27/unreasonable-delay-in-the-age-of-e-discovery-the-zubulake-reasonable-anticipation-standard-applied-in-state-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NC’s Changes to Judicial Appointment Process</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/09/ncs-changes-to-judicial-appointment-process/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/09/ncs-changes-to-judicial-appointment-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:23:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[   Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner was likely happy to see the news of Governor Perdue’s Executive Order 86 which established the North Carolina Judicial Nominating Commission.  In 2010, former Justice O’Connor highlighted that the U.S. was the only nation in the world that had elections for its judges (at the state [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/09/ncs-changes-to-judicial-appointment-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fair Use of Copies of NPL Made in Patent Examination</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/2012/03/08/fair-use-of-copies-of-npl-made-in-patent-examination-3/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/2012/03/08/fair-use-of-copies-of-npl-made-in-patent-examination-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mark Wilson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[IP Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/?p=252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The American Institute of Physics and John Wiley &#038; Sons Inc. recently filed a copyright infringement complaint against two U.S. law firms for making copies of copyrighted works and submitting them, without permission, to clients and the U.S. Patent...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/iplawblog/2012/03/08/fair-use-of-copies-of-npl-made-in-patent-examination-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>“He Will Be Missed” Does Not Say Enough</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/07/he-will-be-missed-does-not-say-enough/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/07/he-will-be-missed-does-not-say-enough/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[   While it is difficult to find the right words to say, I want to say something to honor my friend who recently passed away.  Judge Christopher M. Collier was far too young and taken too suddenly for me to have been prepared to reflect on his life and the impact he had made on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/03/07/he-will-be-missed-does-not-say-enough/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On Second Thought…Maybe Not: Even Federal Judges Second Guess Themselves</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/01/04/on-second-thoughtmaybe-not-even-federal-judges-second-guess-themselves/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/01/04/on-second-thoughtmaybe-not-even-federal-judges-second-guess-themselves/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=93</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[   It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings…or a federal court withdraws its controversial opinion.  Although infrequently, courts do withdraw their opinions and several federal court opinions of interest have been withdrawn since being issued this year.  No doubt these opinions addressed hot topics, leading to controversy over the courts’ initial opinions and prompting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2012/01/04/on-second-thoughtmaybe-not-even-federal-judges-second-guess-themselves/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lower Courts Probe the Line Drawn by Concepcion:  Class Arbitration Waivers and Vindication of Rights</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/12/06/lower-courts-probe-the-line-drawn-by-concepcion-class-arbitration-waivers-and-vindication-of-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/12/06/lower-courts-probe-the-line-drawn-by-concepcion-class-arbitration-waivers-and-vindication-of-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=87</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hypothetical Question: a contract contains an arbitration clause that requires the arbitration of all disputes and also prohibits the parties from arbitrating any claims as part of a class or representative action.  Is the class/representative arbitration waiver enforceable under AT&#038;T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011)?   We discussed that there is a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/12/06/lower-courts-probe-the-line-drawn-by-concepcion-class-arbitration-waivers-and-vindication-of-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Class Action Waivers to State Administrative Hearing Waivers:  How Far is the Reach of Concepcion?</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/11/18/from-class-action-waivers-to-state-administrative-hearing-waivers-how-far-is-the-reach-of-concepcion/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/11/18/from-class-action-waivers-to-state-administrative-hearing-waivers-how-far-is-the-reach-of-concepcion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 21:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=76</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Most are aware of the noteworthy U.S. Supreme Court decision in AT&#038;T Mobility v. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. 1740, issued on April 27, 2011.  I addressed the implications of Concepcion in a previous blog. Concepcion has generated a lot of discussion and has been feared by some to be the “death knell” of the consumer class [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/11/18/from-class-action-waivers-to-state-administrative-hearing-waivers-how-far-is-the-reach-of-concepcion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Full vs. Tailored Daubert Review at the Class Certification Stage</title>
		<link>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/10/26/the-full-vs-tailored-daubert-review-at-the-class-certification-stage/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/10/26/the-full-vs-tailored-daubert-review-at-the-class-certification-stage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Tony Lathrop</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation Law Blog]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Does expert evidence that is offered in support of class certification need to be scientifically reliable in order to be admissible at the class certification stage? While the Circuit Courts are reportedly split on the application of Daubert at the class certification stage, a look behind the terminology used by the courts (full vs. limited [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.mvalaw.com/litigation-law-blog/2011/10/26/the-full-vs-tailored-daubert-review-at-the-class-certification-stage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

