Commercial Law

This article is an attempt to familiarize American readers with some of the nuances and new amendments you may encounter if you are involved in a Canadian insolvency situation.

As a participant in a law firm, you should be thinking about what you can do to contribute to the success of the firm on a frequent basis. Whether you are the managing partner, a practice group leader or an associate, your daily, weekly and monthly activities should contribute not only to your personal goals, but to the firm's goals as well. In addition, your goals should include those related to current clients, potential clients, marketing and firm administration. The following are some important goal-setting techniques and some examples you should keep in mind throughout the year, not only to make sure you are growing personally, but also to make sure you have contributed to the overall growth of the firm in a meaningful way.

As the prognostications of potential outcomes for this case continue over the next several months, it may be wise to recognize that regardless of the outcome, there will always be some degree of uncertainty regarding the limits of patent eligibility. Consequently, the best corporate patent strategies should address and accommodate those uncertainties. While this article describes some of those possible strategies and perspectives, it is far from exhaustive and obviously does not necessarily represent the opinions of its author, his firm, or its clients.

Changes in the business environment for law, and IP law in particular, have prompted many IP-based practitioners and executives to seek opportunities that leverage their deep understanding of IP, the process of innovation, and the value of intangible assets. It is therefore both fitting and proper that Patent Strategy & Management feature an article that addresses this search.

On Sept. 11, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court issued an opinion in the case of Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. v. Gateway Inc. et al. In its ruling, the CAFC found that "the damages evidence of record was neither very powerful, nor presented very well by either party" and that the plaintiff's damages calculation "lacked sufficient evidentiary support." The CAFC therefore vacated the district court's award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.

On Nov. 9, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in In re Bilski ' a case that will likely impact whether business methods are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. ' 101. To date, the Supreme Court has held that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patent eligible, but has yet to apply that holding to a business method.

Business Interruption coverage is contained in most first-party commercial property insurance and is meant to provide coverage where there is a suspension of business caused by direct physical loss to the property. Such policies also contain a "Civil Authority" provision, which typically states that the insurer will pay business income losses caused by the action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than the described premises, caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss.

It is fairly well established in many courts across the United States that "late notice" of a claim under an occurrence-based commercial general liability ("CGL") policy presents a problem for insureds only when it "actually" and "substantially prejudices" an insurer. In light of that standard, insurers appear to face high hurdles if they rely on notice issues to avoid coverage. At the very least, it seems that the question of prejudice is highly factual and thus should be preserved for a jury to decide.