As of Jan. 1, 2010, law firms with offices in the EU that make taxable supplies of legal services to business customers in other EU countries have new monthly value-added tax reporting obligations. Failure to comply with these monthly reporting obligations can result in severe penalties.
Now that 2009 has come to an end, law firms are breathing a sigh of relief and looking forward with hopes of a better year to come. As with any year-end, it is also time to dole out partner compensation, and many firms are hoping they were able to stem the lack of demand for legal services with cost-cutting measures to keep their profits per partner above an acceptable threshold. One interesting observation is that although many firms evaluated their employees and their performance relative to saving the bottom line, an in-depth view of partner performance was by and large ignored.
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.
This two-part article focuses on two issues that are the subject of recent court decisions. Herein: a majority group of secured lenders under a credit facility "dragging along" the minority group into a credit bid under ' 363(k).
By a margin of 38-24, a Bill to legalize same-sex marriages in New York was voted down on the afternoon of Dec. 2. The Bill was sponsored by Thomas K. Duane and endorsed by Gov. David Paterson.
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.
Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc. is widely recognized as a milestone in the annals of patent law for providing direction as to how courts are to analyze and apply the statutory "on-sale" bar to the granting of patents. This article explores how the Federal Circuit has applied Pfaff in more recent cases.
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.
Under the recent Federal Circuit opinion in MMonolithic Power Systems v. O2 Micro InternationalM, courts are permitted to appoint their own technical experts to aid in understanding complex technology involved in patent suits. Such court-appointed experts may even testify before the jury, raising concerns about undue influence and encroachment on the jury's decisional role. As discussed in this article, Monolithic appears to have left these concerns somewhat unresolved, creating a likelihood that they will arise again in future patent cases.
