Over and again in our recent consulting engagements ' particularly with large firms, where trends tend to start ' we're seeing signals that the legal profession is caught in the confluence of destructive trends:
It is almost impossible to open a newspaper today without reading about cybersecurity breaches. Target Corp., Neimann Marcus and many other companies have been targeted, and many experts think it is only a matter of time until law firms are targeted (if it's not too late already). All this "cyber risk" may have you pining for the days before computers, when almost all information was stored on paper.
Do you want to be considered a thought leader in your field? What law firms need to do is expose their expertise and practice groups to new prospects for their services.
Across the nation, there exists a relatively untested notion that the only approach to e-discovery is case-by-case ' that every unique case requires an equally unique approach to discovery. While this phenomenon is a natural component of any industry seeking standardization, the unfortunate byproduct can be seen when organizations incur great costs to marry pre-existing on-premise solutions with whatever contracted-for solution is required to react to the case that came down the pipe today.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
