No matter how good a loss prevention program your firm has in place, it is a sad but inevitable fact of life that you will have claims. Your goal as a firm manager, therefore, is not to reduce claims incidence to zero, but rather to have a sound program in place to identify and respond to claims in a manner that minimizes your losses. Here are some thoughts on how to do that from the perspective of a trial lawyer who has spent much of the past 30 years defending law firms against such claims.

This article discusses several simple considerations that confront a litigant when selecting experts in a typical patent case.

Features

In the first article in this series, we established that the Japanese government has taken a keen interest in rebuilding its regulatory foundation to help strengthen the country's intellectual property rights ('IPR'). The second installment explored the evolving strategies Japanese corporations have and are beginning to employ to leverage their intellectual capital. This final installment focuses on Japan's leading role in developing and enforcing international IPR, specifically within Asia.

Features

Version 3.0 of the GPL, published on June 29, 2007, contains several new provisions regarding patents prompted by a recent agreement between Microsoft and Novell.

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

Incorporating a disclosure from an earlier document by reference would not appear to be a difficult task, but a recent decision from the Federal Circuit suggests otherwise.

Features

In <i>ITC Limited v. Punchgini, et al.,</i> the New York Court of Appeals declined to recognize the 'famous marks' doctrine, but it did confirm the possibility of protection under existing common law theories of misappropriation in certain limited circumstances.

A biting satire it may not have been, but <i>Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC</i> nonetheless concluded that canine chew toys fashioned after Louis Vuitton handbags were a permitted parody that did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton's admittedly well-known marks. Although the decision scratches little new ground in the trademark jurisprudence of parody and infringement, it was a first opportunity for an appellate court to assess parody under the new Trademark Dilution Revision Act.