Several recent decisions have pointed toward a sinking standard for proving inequitable conduct, which has created an atmosphere of uncertainty about the proper scope of the inequitable conduct defense. The Federal Circuit's recent opinion on the subject, Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., appears to be an attempt to right the ship by reiterating the standards for proving inequitable conduct that were established more than 20 years ago.
The Patent Reform Act of 2007 may soon be recycled as The Patent Reform Act of 2009 and reintroduced in the new Congress. Should this reform become the law, it is likely that inventors will still invent. The author's fear, however, is that without strong patent law, investors will no longer want to invest in unprotected ideas.
The Federal Circuit's October 2008 decision in In re Bilski created uncertain implications for biotechnology regarding the applicable standard for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. In its recent one-paragraph opinion in Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen IDEC, the Federal Circuit left many issues unexplained, but it did make one thing clear: The Bilski standard, now being applied in the area of biomedical technology, poses a significant threat to the viability of patents claiming diagnostic methods.
As a result of two watershed cases, a Board that fails in its duty of oversight of intangible assets now places individual directors at risk for personal liability.
At any professional services firm, but particularly for an AmLaw 200 law firm with offices in several locations, data protection is a key concern for management. At my current firm as well as a previous one, Riverbed Steelhead' appliances played a crucial part in and facilitated our data protection approaches by enabling the consolidation and centralization of our critical servers and data. Riverbed has listened to its customers and has continued to improve its products with the result that they not only optimize WAN connectivity, but also offer additional features and functionality to help firms more effectively execute their technology plans.
Law firms around the world are continually challenged with how to best manage information and business processes associated with clients, matters, conflicts of interest and new business intake while taking every precaution to mitigate risk and increase productivity. It's not an easy task, but with proper vision, along with the right team and systems in place, firms can meet evolving business needs and achieve optimal information management while enhancing risk management. Here is how we did it at Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft.
The process of redaction evokes images of legal teams gathered along large conference tables surrounded by boxes stroking black permanent markers across brittle documents, while assistants shuttle between photocopiers and bates stamping machines to prevent an adversary from spotting a privileged smoking gun. With the transformation of modern litigation from print to digital, those who incorporate and master the use of electronic tools have a distinct advantage.
In response to increasing volumes of electronic data generated and maintained, corporations are forming response teams to develop and implement protocol designed to comply with legal requirements for the preservation and production of electronically stored information. In furtherance of this mission, the role of IT has gone through a radical evolution ' and IT is leading the charge in creating and implementing IT protocol designed to safeguard corporations against the future threat of litigation or investigation.
The New Jersey Supreme Court is poised to decide whether ordinary people who lie about the wares they sell on Internet auction sites like eBay can be held liable under the state's Consumer Fraud Act, with its awesome treble-damages remedy.
In the early "wild west" days of the Internet, legal remedies always seemed a step behind the intellectual property dilemmas presented by the new technological medium. Congress has gradually responded by enacting new laws to tackle high-tech loopholes, and the courts have creatively applied traditional concepts in an effort to prevent unscrupulous people from exploiting others' Internet-based intellectual property.
