Search the archive.

The unraveling of the consensus behind globalization is hard to date, but “China shock” became a significant force during President Barack Obama’s second term. Olson described the growing skepticism on Main Street that globalization and the rising of Chinese manufacturing were benefitting multinational corporations, Wall Street, and large financial institutions while hollowing out U.S. manufacturing and not boosting the average worker. Moreover, the realization of the weakness of the system of global trade governance – the World Trade Organization – also played a role. Despite calls for action against predatory Chinese trade practices, “There’s an increased recognition that the WTO isn’t going to ride in on a white horse here and save the day,” Olson said. (Donald Trump called the Trans-Pacific Partnership among 12 nations “a rape of our country” and withdrew the U.S. on the third day of his presidency.) The pandemic and the Ukraine war were the final systemic shocks, while the view that global trade is a tool in the struggle between authoritarianism and democracy has also played a role, Olson said.

The end of the notion that global interdependence is a driver of peace is a huge historical shift. The people who built the institutions of the post-World War II era were white men in their 50s whose lives had been defined by catastrophes – World War I, the Great Depression, World War II and the fear of nuclear war, Olson said. It was understood that the Smoot Hawley tariffs were a major contributor to the Great Depression and the war. “And so the pillars of this new system would be global cooperation, try to get global rules in place and establish multilateral organizations that were going to help keep us in line and help facilitate the ability of countries to work out their problems without dropping nuclear bombs on each other’s heads. So these were the Bretton Woods…. the United Nations, World Bank, the IMF… And free trade was an absolute centerpiece of this new world order that you were trying to construct in the aftermath of the Second World War.”

Studies in our dominant literature showed how economic and political motivations caused trade wars, which revolved around the Yuan pegging and manipulation (Plender, Citation2019; Rodrik, Citation2018). Other research we cited is the historical US trade imbalance with China since 1986 (USCB, Citation2020; Wu, Citation2020) while pointing fingers at WTO regulatory inadequacies on global trade governance (Sheng et al., Citation2019; Solis, Citation2014). Further study identified the US accusation of China on intellectual property rights (IPR) (Yongding, Citation2018) because it raised national security questions in the US. The consensus is that IPR and patent issues are partly attributed to the US Most-Favoured-Nation’s (MFN) status to China by the previous US administration (Landler, Citation2005). Arguably, China’s MFN status has undermined the US economy, patent rights and innovation (Muehlfeld & Wang, Citation2022; Zubascu, Citation2020).

These studies remind us about the escalating cycle impacts of the US-China trade war on the world’s two largest economies because of their significant contribution to global trade. The escalating tariff retaliation between the US and China on industries, businesses, and consumers and other harmful trade discrimination policies portend a risk and frontal challenges to the global trade order. Research by (Rodrik, Citation2018, Lawrence, Citation2018; Shaffer, Citation2021) has demonstrated how US-China trade largely undermines the WTO’s rule-based multilateral trading system and affects the global growth prospects of countries with the worst and darkest economic scenarios (Steinbock, Citation2019). As Yao (Citation2018) noted, the US-China trade war has disrupted world trade, costing the world more than a US$430 billion loss in GDP.

The so-called PREVAIL Act (here) was floated some weeks back to “to ensure the United States does not cede technological supremacy to our foreign competitors and adversaries.” As the accompanying materials insist, fighting China is the rationale behind the bill’s proposed patent reforms. That is, the U.S. Patent system must be made stronger to rival the Chinese threat by weakening the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

If this “stronger patents” argument sounds familiar, it should. Before its reinvention as the Prevail Act, the same “litigation first” ideas were packaged to the American public as the so-called Stronger Patents Act. But, the “Stronger” Bill went absolutely nowhere despite being introduced every year for the past six years (maybe 7, I lost count).

Unable to demonstrate that observed climate trends are due to anthropogenic climate change — or even that these events are particularly unusual or concerning — climate catastrophists will often turn to dire predictions about prospective climate phenomena. The problem with such predictions is that they are almost always generated by climate models driven by highly complex sets of assumptions about which there is significant dispute. Worse, these models are notorious for failing to accurately predict already documented changes in climate. As climatologist Patrick Michaels of the Competitive Enterprise Institute notes:

During all periods from 10 years (2006-2015) to 65 (1951-2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations, and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs. Over shorter periods, such as the last two decades, a plethora of mechanisms have been put forth to explain the observed/modeled divergence, but none do so completely and many of the explanations are inconsistent with each other.

But something happened in the early 2000s. The unfolding of history as liberalism had been disrupted. The attacks of September 11, the subsequent bungling of intelligence regarding WMDs, the United States’ decision to drag its NATO allies into a series of embarrassing and ultimately ineffectual wars in the Middle East, numerous botched attempts at regime change and nation-building, and aggressive ideological demands as pre-conditions for diplomacy, have devastated the credibility of the U.S.-driven, Western liberal order. In some areas, history is now forking from the liberal path with a surprising confidence. Axios declared 2018 the year of the strongman, but it can also be called the year of liberalism in crisis. Russia, Egypt, China, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey—among others—have gained a renewed sense of self and conviction in their opposition to liberalism, as opposed to merely carving out for themselves an unprincipled exception to liberalism and ceding it the moral high ground. Even in Europe, where liberal democracy claims some of its greatest accomplishments, liberalism is beginning to unravel on the periphery in countries like Poland, Hungary, and Italy. Jair Bolsonaro, who notably expressed sympathy for a military dictatorship, has done tremendously well so far in the Brazilian presidential election. Neither soft, nor hard evangelism of liberalism is working the way it used to. For liberal theorists, the prospect of a liberal democratic world peace is now questionable. The Economist has put out a call to arms to defend liberalism as the most successful idea of the last 400 years. Whether this call results in anything substantial remains to be seen. But there is a palpable sense that liberalism is facing a serious new opposition. Despite this trend, liberalism’s theorists have a hope encapsulated by Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry’s 2009 pronouncement that “liberal states should not assume that history has ended, but they can still be certain that it is on their side.” And yet, in the nine years following this bold pronouncement, history has not been especially kind to liberalism. Texas A&M political science professor Christopher Layne, writing in early 2018, has summed up the current situation aptly, namely that China as an increasingly self-aware superpower is already reshaping the world order away from Pax Americana: The US foreign policy establishment does not grasp this, and, instead, has invested the idea of a ‘rules-based, institutionalized’ international order with a talismanic quality. It claims that rules and institutions are politically neutral, and, ipso facto, beneficial for all. However, in international politics, who rules makes the rules. Rules and institutions reflect the distribution of power in the international system. A power transition is taking place in the early twenty-first century: US power is in relative decline and China is rising quickly. No international order—not even the Pax Americana—lasts forever. The liberal world order cannot survive the erosion of US hegemonic power. It is this structural change, not Donald Trump, that threatens the post-Second World War international order’s survival. It requires a huge leap of faith to believe that a risen China will continue to subordinate itself to the Pax Americana. Which brings us to the question: given that the prospect of an expanded democratic peace is starting to hit some hard limits, how well does liberal democratic peace theory actually explain the peace that has existed among liberal democratic states? Although LDP theory is taken as an empirical law in international relations, it has picked up a number of qualifications, making the theory far less interesting than first presented. Here are various renditions of the theory since its modern inception in the 1960s: Claim 1: liberal democracies go to war less than non-liberal democracies. The most significant abandonment in the field has been of the monadic hypothesis: that liberal democratic states are less likely to go to war compared to non-liberal democratic states. Henry Farber and Joanne Gowa have convincingly shown that, statistically, democracies on average have the same probability of going to war as non-democracies. At this point, no one holds the monadic hypothesis. Claim 2: no liberal democracy has fought another liberal democracy since 1816 (notably after 1812) This claim from Michael Doyle has increasingly fallen out of favor. There weren’t many democracies prior to 1945, and so the number of dyadic pairs of liberal democratic countries that could have gone to war was extremely limited. For example, Doyle excludes Great Britain from counting as a liberal democracy until 1832 and denies that the Spanish-American War of 1898 should count, even though the Polity II data set lists Spain as a democracy in 1898. Others have argued that the Second Philippines War of 1899 shouldn’t count either, as at the time the Philippines hadn’t held an election yet. This strong claim has largely been dropped because of a) exception cases that require new qualifications to explain, and b) the fact that there weren’t enough existing liberal democracies to achieve significance. All totaled, there are around 50 exception cases suggested in the literature. Claim 3: mature liberal democracies tend not to go to war/don’t go to war with one another Although Peru and Ecuador fought while both were liberal democracies, some maintain that the war occurred before the “pacifying effects” of liberal democracy had enough time to work, meaning maturity was lacking. Yet another qualification. Interestingly, the U.S. intervened militarily to topple Salvador Allende after he was democratically elected in Chile. Israel invaded Lebanon in 1981, but at the time, Lebanon’s government was in disarray. R.J. Rummel states that the Israeli attack on the United States’ USS Liberty in 1967 counts as conflict below the level of war, but argued that Israel at the time was “only partially free.” That Finland joined up with the fascists from 1941 to 1944 apparently shouldn’t count, as no Finnish troops attacked troops from a liberal democratic country, though Great Britain bombed Finland in 1941. Claim 4: mature liberal democracies in the post-1945 era don’t go to war with one another The addition of the ‘post-1945 era’ qualification came later in the development of LDP theory, and while it may be a disappointing qualification, it may be necessary, given the small-N universe of liberal democracies before 1945. Bruce Russett admits that “the absence of murderous quarrels between democracies was not too surprising, and may need—at least for the pre-1945 era—little further explanation.” Claim 5: mature liberal democracies in the post-1945 era don’t go to war with one another, but for normative reasons, not structural reasons It’s claimed that the structural elements of liberal democratic states, namely separation of powers, checks and balances, elections, the free press, etc. should result in less war in general, but this is essentially equivalent to the monadic hypothesis, which has been largely abandoned. So, it might be possible to explain the absence of war through the normative mechanisms of liberal democratic states, as opposed to structural elements. Zeev Maoz and Bruce Russett argue that while there is some support for the structural model, the normative model has more support and better consistency. The above examples illustrate continuing iterations of the theory. This trajectory is by no means perfectly linear, nor is there consensus on how many qualifications are required, but the fact that these qualifications have continued to pile on is evidence that LDP theory is now much closer to triviality than when first introduced.

Available measures suggest the proportion of democratic countries in the world today is at or near an all-time high. The few indicators that show some backsliding indicate only a return to the level of the 1990s, a time when liberal democracy was widely considered triumphant. The rate of increase has slowed. But this follows the stunning surge of democracy’s “third wave.” The rate of failures among existing democracies is close to that predicted by their levels of economic development, income growth, and past democratic experience. Moreover, whereas previous waves have been followed within 10-15 years by a significant fall in the proportion of democracies, that has not occurred this time, at least so far. Neither the rate of democratic breakdowns nor that of quality deteriorations in existing democracies is historically high. Previous literature and the survival models presented here confirm that high economic development, positive economic growth, and extensive democratic experience are associated with much lower odds of democratic breakdown. Based on such estimated relationships, the hazard of a breakdown in the US today appears extremely low. While some data suggest a weakening of commitment to democracy among parts of the US public—which is worrying in itself—it is hard to find any systematic evidence that low or falling public support for democracy causes democratic breakdowns. As for elite norms, Latin American countries where a radicalized military supported dictatorship have sometimes succumbed to antidemocratic coups. But excluding such extreme cases, the claim that eroding norms cause democracies to fail appears to rest on anecdotal evidence. Even if it does not constitute a general trend, deterioration in the quality of democracy in countries such as Hungary and Poland is obviously cause for concern, as is the reversion to authoritarianism in Russia and Turkey. It is certainly possible that a global slide in democracy has begun that will accelerate in coming years. It is also possible that US institutions will prove weaker than expected. Few democracies have been tested by the kind of demographic change forecast for coming decades, as the previously dominant race loses its majority status. Still it is important to distinguish between fears for the future and expectations that are reasonable based on available evidence. The historical record suggests that democracies like the US have inner resources that distinguish them from younger and poorer ones. They are far less vulnerable to destructive demagogues than much current commentary implies

One of the most easily identifiable problems with the floodgates argument is that it is rarely, if ever, followed by a true analysis of the potential litigation of which it speaks. That is, one response to a floodgates argument might be, "Are you sure that a contrary position would yield a flood of litigation?" 82 This criticism is frequently leveled against the floodgates argument, especially in the realm of tort litigation. For example, as one commentator has argued: The "floodgates of litigation" argument has proven wrong time and again. The lifting of the "impact" rule in rewarding damages for mental anguish, allowing third parties to recover under contracts, and the recognition of the right to privacy, were all prophesied to overwhelm the courts with frivolous claims. They have not. This argument, one should think, is relatively strong. While the floodgates argument is generally based on policy considerations,8 5 policy arguments are rarely so indeterminate. While moral arguments are certainly not precise--one cannot quantify, say, "fairness" or 'justice"-they are simply used differently. That is, when a judge says that a decision "promote [s] justice,"8 6 he or she [they] is not speaking about a tangible, actual result. In contrast, when a judge expresses that a decision will open the floodgates of litigation, he or she [they] is saying that there will be actual, cognizable caseload results from the decision. Given how often the floodgates do not open when we are warned that they will,"' making the argument without a proper foundation is dangerous. While there certainly are situations in which a judge should consider the implications of a decision on his or her [their] caseload, 8 doing so without considering the factual bases of those implications is problematic.'8 9 And while uncertainty is an unavoidable part of the law,' 90 the language with which the floodgates argument is regularly employed expresses anything but conjecture and uncertainty. The arguments are forceful; they are intended to conjure "[i] mages of a destructive, elemental force."'9' After all, as Judge Posner notes, "So irregular has been the growth of the caseloads of each of the three tiers of the federal judiciary in the past, and so many and poorly understood are the causes of changes in judicial caseloads, that it is impossible to make responsible predictions about future changes.' 92 The failure of judges to recognize this limitation of the argument reduces the weight afforded thereto.

Kathy, 3-23-2022, "AI proves effective at improving patent office efficiency and application timeliness," CAS, 

AI-enabled search solutions can play an important role across the entire patent ecosystem in improving both efficiency and patent quality. They can support faster examinations within patent offices and can allow innovators to identify prior art earlier, avoiding the time and cost of prosecution or validity challenges for bad patents. This is why the AI prior art algorithms were added to the  and STNext® solutions for improving scientific and IP searches.

Marcum LLP-- op-ranked national accounting and advisory firm. “U.S. District Courts See Decline in Patent Litigation Despite Rise in Patents Granted”, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/us-district-courts-see-decline-in-patent-litigation-despite-rise-in-patents-granted-302128372.html. Apr 26, 2024.

A newly released study from Marcum LLP reveals surprising trends in two decades of patent litigation, shedding light on unexpected patterns that counter the steady increase in patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The 2024 Marcum Patent Litigation Study examines the decline in patent infringement lawsuits, median damage awards, the impact of court decisions on permanent injunctions, and shifting legal venue preferences, providing strategic insight for business and legal professionals. Key Findings: This study offers insight into the trends and shifts that may influence how businesses approach patent litigation Overall Drop in Litigation: Although the number of patents granted annually continues to rise, the number of patent infringement lawsuits filed in U.S. District Courts has decreased significantly. In 2013, 6,497 cases were filed, but by 2022, this number had dropped to 3,639.

Innovation will be a crucial requirement for US leadership and national security in the twenty-first century. The United States faces an era of global competition across all elements of national power. In the economic arena, American domination has necessarily been comparatively receding as the world continues to develop. Militarily, challenges have expanded geographically and qualitatively as multi-polarity and diffusion of power increases the number of capable state and nonstate actors. Diplomacy has become more complex as information capabilities are available throughout the world, populaces are more engaged, and there are strong ideological challenges to the Western, liberal rules-based model. The United States is still the most powerful nation, but maintaining successful leadership and strong national security will require the United States to build on and enhance its existing strengths. A crucial element of that requirement will be the capacity to innovate regularly and effectively. Innovation will be a prerequisite to leadership across all elements of national power.

This report proposes that both the US government and the American private sector take significant steps to encourage innovation beyond what the United States, already an innovative society, has successfully accomplished. The key elements will be enhanced development of the “cluster model” for innovation, which engages the public, private, and nonprofit sectors jointly; greater government focus on innovation; increased support for innovation by corporations; expanding the spectrum of entrepreneurs; and maintaining the diversity of ideas and approaches necessary for innovation while expanding the synergies between and among the multiple elements of the innovation landscape, including increasing the permeability between the national security agencies and the private sector.

The objective of patent rights is to foster innovation and economic growth. However, to date, there is little robust evidence that patents “work”.

Here, we applied a difference-in-differences strategy to study the impact of changes in patent rights within panels of up to 54 manufacturing industries in up to 72 countries between 1981-2000. We found that stronger patent rights were associated with faster growth among more patent-intensive industries.

The report recognizes that innovation—the process through which new ideas are generated and successfully introduced in the marketplace—is a primary driver of U.S. economic growth and national 2 competitiveness.1 U.S. companies’ use of patents, copyright, and trade secrecy to protect their creations, and trademarks to distinguish their goods and services from those of competitors represent important supports for innovation, enabling firms to capture market share, which contributes to growth in our economy. The granting and protection of intellectual property rights is vital to promoting innovation and creativity and is an essential element of our free enterprise, market-based system. Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are the principal means used to establish ownership of inventions and creative ideas in their various forms, providing a legal foundation to generate tangible benefits from innovation for companies, workers, and consumers. Without this framework, the creators of intellectual property would tend to lose the economic fruits of their own work, thereby undermining the incentives to undertake the investments necessary to develop the IP in the first place.2 Moreover, without IP protection, the inventor who had invested time and money in developing the new product or service (sunk costs) would always be at a disadvantage to the new firm that could just copy and market the product without having to recoup any sunk costs or pay the higher salaries required by those with the creative talents and skills. As a result, the benefits associated with American ingenuity would tend to more easily flow outside the United States. The report finds that IP is used everywhere in the economy, and IP rights support innovation and creativity in virtually every U.S. industry. While IP rights play a large role in generating economic growth, too little attention has been given to identifying which industries produce or use significant amounts of IP and rely most intensively on these rights. The report was written to give policy makers and the public more information about the impacts of IP protection in the U.S. economy on which to base sound policy.

In recent years, a great many studies of the real-world impact of patenting on innovation and economic growth (many available for free on ssrn.com) point to its beneficial effects. Arrow (1962), Griliches (1963), Schmookler (1966), Kitch (1977), Reinganum (1981), Tirole (1988), Klemperer (1990), Romer (1990), Giulbert and Shapiro (1990), Grossman and Helpman (1991), Aghion and Howitt (1992), Scotchmer (1999), and Gallini (2002) all found that patents foster ex ante innovation — meaning, they induce people to invent because of the prospect of reward.

Invention, it has been shown, is driven primarily not by genius or happenstance but rather by markets and the expectation of the profit that can be gained by securing the patent rights to new technologies. Zorina Khan of Bowdoin College and the late Kenneth Sokoloff at UCLA found that among the “great inventors” of the 19th century, “their patterns of patenting were procyclical [and] responded to expected profit opportunities.” And as Khan noted elsewhere, “Ordinary people [are] stimulated by higher perceived returns or demand-side incentives to make long-term commitments to inventive activity.”

The United States faces many threats to our National Security. These threats include continuing wars with extremist elements such as ISIS and potential wars with rogue state North Korea or regional nuclear power Iran. The heated economic and diplomatic competition with Russia and a surging China could spiral out of control. Concurrently, we face threats to our future security posed by growing civil strife, famine, and refugee and migration challenges which create incubators for extremist and anti-American government factions. Our response cannot be one dimensional but instead must be a nuanced and comprehensive National Security Strategy combining all elements of National Power including a Food Security Strategy.

An American Food Security Strategy is an imperative factor in reducing the multiple threats impacting our National wellbeing. Recent history has shown that reliable food supplies and stable prices produce more stable and secure countries. Conversely, food insecurity, particularly in poorer countries, can lead to instability, unrest, and violence.

Intellectual property (IP) contributes enormously to our national and state economies. Dozens of industries across our economy rely on the adequate enforcement of their patents, trademarks, and copyrights, while consumers use IP to ensure they are purchasing safe, guaranteed products. We believe IP rights are worth protecting, both domestically and abroad. This is why:

Intellectual Property Creates and Supports High-Paying Jobs

Anthropogenic-driven changes to the hydroclimate will impact on water resources. For example, rainfall changes will affect crop yields and food production; snow and ice, which melt to feed major river systems, are at risk with warming. More than one-sixth of the global population rely on melt-fed river catchments, and this resource is at risk as climate change is likely to cause greater seasonal variability — higher winter flows, because of earlier melt, and reduced summer and autumn flows. Additionally, higher temperatures, and resultant increased biological activity, could lead to decreased water quality. All these changes could occur alongside increased populations and economic development, creating greater demand for a diminishing resource.

The potential for water resource scarcity to lead to conflict, particularly between nations, is the question Michael T. Klare of Hampshire College, Amherst, USA, considers by examining the available research. While within-country water conflicts have been considered and identified as climate change risk, international conflict has received less attention. Globally, many nations share river catchments, and these may not be covered by an agreed cooperative management framework. Conflict between nations over water could trigger secondary engagement from additional nations in an attempt to resolve the conflict.

The Global IP Center and its members believe that strong intellectual property rights are integral to driving the innovation and creativity necessary to create jobs, save lives, advance economic growth and development around the world, and generate breakthrough solutions to global challenges such as climate change.

Our Nation's Founders recognized the link between strong IP rights and innovation more than 200 years ago and explicitly gave Congress the power to protect IP rights in the constitution. As a result, America has led the world in innovation for generations.

Kathy, 3-23-2022, "AI proves effective at improving patent office efficiency and application timeliness," CAS, 

AI-enabled search solutions can play an important role across the entire patent ecosystem in improving both efficiency and patent quality. They can support faster examinations within patent offices and can allow innovators to identify prior art earlier, avoiding the time and cost of prosecution or validity challenges for bad patents. This is why the AI prior art algorithms were added to the  and STNext® solutions for improving scientific and IP searches.

As judges around the country gingerly reopen their courtrooms and invite lawyers, litigants and jurors back for business—sometimes as usual, but often still far from the normal routines of years past—they’re being confronted by an array of pitfalls, real and potential. Will a surge of COVID-19 cases among the unvaccinated and forceful advance of the delta variant force renewed shutdowns? Will jurors and staffers be willing to risk a return? Are mask mandates and vaccine passports in the offing? But one very real dilemma is already on their minds: Backlogs of criminal, civil and domestic cases that have piled up, exacerbating already crowded dockets where litigants and lawyers jostle to get motions filed, rulings issued and, toughest of all, cases tried. Richard Clifton, a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who serves as president of the Federal Judges Association, said that court backlogs are a big topic for judges, although not all are as impacted as others. “At least one judge in a very busy district didn’t think the backlog had turned out as high as it turned out to be,” he said. “Other judges have commented, unspecifically, they’re just piling up.” He said the most frequent comment is that the civil calendar “is just sitting there” because judges are spending all their time dealing with criminal caseloads. He hasn’t heard about judges suggesting settlement as an option to those with civil cases but, he said, “I would be shocked if it weren’t happening.” “The reality is that most cases get settled, we all know that—it’s not a good or a bad thing, it’s just a fact,” he said. And, while judges don’t actively get involved in settlements, their goal is to resolve cases. “And if it’s realistic to say to parties, ‘look, you won’t get a trial date anytime soon,’ I’m sure that’s something judges are saying to parties in those cases.” That’s exactly what happened to Ryan Baker, of Waymaker in Los Angeles. “It absolutely is the case that, especially in the federal courts, civil trials are at the end of the line,” he said. Baker represents the defendant in a trademark case filed in 2017. “I know there’s been a lot of debate among the judges on how to handle this situation,” he said. “There are very different views, as there are with any group of people, on what is appropriate and what measures need to be taken.” In Baker’s case, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney of the Central District of California minced no words in telling the parties in April that he could not guarantee a trial date in 2021, or even the first half of 2022. “The court strongly believes that this case should settle,” he wrote in a minute order. “To hold a trial in this civil case would mean asking citizens to report for jury duty or to testify as witnesses when many of them have been out of work for months and fear they will not be able to pay their rent, mortgage, or other bills, or put food on the table for their families. “And it would also ask the court to find time in its congested calendar for such an endeavor after more than a year of closure due to the coronavirus,” Carney wrote. Baker said the case went through two mediations and three court-ordered settlement conferences before settling July 23. “And these conferences, the last couple have been ordered because the court is concerned that this case is not going to be set for trial, not this year, not even next year, because of the backlog of criminal matters that will necessarily precede all the civil trials,” he said. California’s Central District, which includes Los Angeles, has six judicial vacancies. But Baker said a lot depends on how much is at stake in the case and the specific judge’s calendar. He has another case in the district in which Judge Consuelo Marshall has set a trial date for February 2022. But there has been a strong push for settlement. “The backlog factor weighs heavily in favor of courts really advocating for private resolution because the reality is litigants are having to bear the cost of extended and protracted litigation,” Baker said. In a 2015 patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, Judge Gregory Woods canceled a Nov. 29 trial, citing a criminal trial now scheduled for that date. After his June 15 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn asked the parties for settlement dates. Another judge in New Mexico cited the court’s backlog as a reason to grant final approval of a nearly $4.2 million settlement involving a class of truck drivers seeking unpaid overtime wages. Settling the 2019 class action would avoid “significant delay,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Fouratt said in an April 9 order. “The court further observes that litigation of this case would have moved exceptionally slowly in the current pandemic environment in which jury trials are logistically difficult and almost entirely devoted for the next 12-18 months to resolving an unprecedented backlog in criminal cases,” he wrote. Shannon Liss-Riordan, the plaintiff’s lawyer in that case, agreed that the pandemic has exacerbated delays, but not “to an inordinate degree.” Liss-Riordan, of Boston’s Lichten & Liss-Riordan, noted that she tried a federal bench trial this year via Zoom along with several arbitrations during the past year. Her firm also has settled two cases that were at least a decade old. Sometimes, clients opt to settle on their own, many hoping to avoid the increasing costs of litigating and the potential unavailability of witnesses one or two years down the road. “Everybody is really tired of hearing, ‘well, the pandemic,’” Baker said. “Everything in life is different because of the pandemic, including the operation of the judicial system. The second part is, ‘what can we do about it?’ One of the first, most obvious, answers is, ‘We can try to settle it. We can take matters in our own hands.’” In some cases, Baker said, the parties have stipulated to arbitration despite having no arbitration agreement because it’s faster than going through the courts.

"It's a hard cycle right now," Crump said. "You're never going to get back to where you were. It's kind of impossible at this point." Crump said the pandemic impacted the courts in a big way. She also said Guilford County isn't the only courthouse dealing with a big backlog. "It was devastating, I mean it was horrible," Crump said. "We were doing what we could do, but you have to remember that Guilford County is the third-largest county in the state. And we normally deal with a lot of cases." Crump said at first, they were only allowed to do 100 cases a day. "On an average day we could have anything in criminal district courts, we could have anything, from 400 to 600 defendants," Crump said. "So, when you have to modify that down to 100 cases, that's not doing a lot. Please understand that doesn’t mean 100 individuals or defendants, but 100 cases, meaning that one person could have 10 cases.” Crump said because of the modifications, she doesn't know if they will ever catch up with their backlog. "Realistically, we'll try to make a dent but it's impossible because we're still not even at 50% and cases are still coming in," Crump said. Crump said explaining to those still waiting for their day in court, is frustrating all around. And when it comes to new cases, it might be a while before they are heard. "We've had people waiting for trial since 2019, 2018, and as you know the homicide rate is going on up," Crump said. "Well those new cases, they are going to have to wait years because you still have to get through the old cases." Crump said they are only working 200 cases a day because the courts are still not operating at 100% yet. “I can’t tell you when we’re going to get up to 100% and we probably never will, " Crump said. "Unless you have extra judges and extra courtrooms, which we don’t have, then you still can’t move all of those cases." Even though Crump doesn't think they will be able to catch back up with the backlog, they are trying. "We're trying to do everything that we can to make sure people have their day in court," Crump said. "Not just the individual that are charged but also your victims." Another challenge was trying not to overcrowd the jails while people waited for a court date. One way Crump tried to handle that was consenting to an unsecured bond for non-violent offenders. "If a magistrate set a bond for $1,000 or less than we consented to that bond being unsecured because we didn't want the jails to pile up and have COVID run rampant through the jails," Crump said. One thing Crump wants the community to know is they never stopped working even when the courts weren't in session. “I want the community to know that the DA's Office, we have been working tirelessly to move these cases," Crump said. "We had two shutdowns when the courthouse was shut down, that is the only time my office was shut down, otherwise, we were open we were working."