Cyber security incidents are rising very rapidly. The growing number of serious attacks on essential cyber networks is one of the most serious threats the U.S. faces. One of the critical controls relating to cyber security incidents is the implementation of effective cyber security incident response plans. This article recommends that legal battle plans be developed and maintained as a critical part of your cyber security incident response plans.
Research over the past four years is showing a slow-moving upward trend of law firms hiring professional salespeople. This trend spans all sizes of firms, from small to global. The backgrounds of these professionals varies; primarily, they come to firms from a solid background of success in the sales world, many having worked against assigned quotas and on partial commission.
Our industry most likely will surpass the record 70 mergers reached in 2008. With theinflux of laterals, legal marketers can play an integral role in the new attorneys' success.
When law-firm leaders create or modify a firm's strategic goals, they typically do not spend enough time thinking through the ways in which they may have to change the culture if the strategy is to succeed.
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.
