Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in <i>Diaz v. Patterson</i>, 547 F. 3d 88, has rejected a due-process challenge to a New York law that allows a person who brings or plans to bring a lawsuit claiming an interest in real property to file a <i>lis pendens</i> against the property. The <i>lis pendens</i> is a document, filed in the office of the clerk of the county where the property is located, which serves to notify potential purchasers of claims against the property.
Any adjustments we can make to our management style using LEAN processing techniques can significantly beef up a firm's bottom line.
Features
There are steps firms can take — many in the areas of accounting and financial planning — to best ensure that they emerge from the current economic slump just as strong as when they entered it.
Foreign exchange issues can present problems in the partner remuneration context. Various internal methods can be employed, however, to successfully address the challenges.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
To avoid declaratory judgment actions, patent holders may opt to sue or threaten the purchasers of an allegedly infringing product, without threatening suit against the manufacturer. In effect, the patent holder coerces the manufacturing company to give up the right to manufacture or distribute the accused product by scaring off its customers. At what point does this activity create grounds for a declaratory judgment action by the manufacturer?
In <i>Proveris Scientific Corp. v. Innovasystems, Inc.,</i> the Federal Circuit addressed whether the "safe-harbor" provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act applies to immunize infringement if the accused product is reasonably related to the development and submission of information to the FDA for regulatory approval purposes.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has long maintained a high bar for proving inequitable conduct. This high bar is appropriate given the severity of the remedy — unenforceability of the entire patent — and the relative ease of using hindsight to find fault with the prosecution of a patent. Several recent decisions, however, 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, <i>Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,</i> 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.
