Although happening slowly, project management and process improvement efforts are gradually improving the efficiency of U.S. legal practice, off-setting whatever demand growth the economy would otherwise have produced.
There have been a spate of reports the last few months on alternative fee agreements, or AFAs as they are also known. Subsequently these have stirred a tremendous amount of conversation in the industry. Some of the conversation is helpful, some of it is constructively critical, and some of it is quite simply confusing.
After three years of law school, hours spent studying for the Bar exam, and many years toiling away at the associate ranks, new partners often believe that there is nothing new they need to be taught about being a principle of a law firm. The resistance to spending time in a classroom is palpable. It is viewed as tedious and, since partners are rarely compensated for learning or personal development, they are less inclined to "waste" their time.
In recent years, the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) has brought far fewer revenue recognition and other financial reporting cases than it had historically. That leads us naturally to wonder whether this trend will continue in the future. Not likely.
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.
