LJN Newsletters

When the British invaded in the 1960s, they came as rock and roll bands. Today, the British ' joined by the Italians, the French, and other foreign nationals ' are storming America's shores as plaintiffs in pharmaceutical personal-injury class action and other complex litigation matters. These plaintiffs sue domestic U.S. corporations here for alleged injuries caused abroad by their international subsidiaries. In doing so, the foreign plaintiffs are attempting to circumvent favorable foreign law that protects the corporate defendant. As shown below, the forum non conveniens doctrine is a viable defense to these suits in certain situations.

Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.

In equipment leasing industry court cases, one of the challenges lawyers and judges face is simply understanding the nuances and contractual language of the business. That makes credible expert testimony in such legal matters especially critical to winning a case, whether it involves a bank, captive finance company, or independent leasing firm.

In a recent decision, Cummings Properties, Inc. v. Aspeon Solutions, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-019-07), the Massachusetts District Court/Boston Municipal Court Appellate Division affirmed the District Court judge's findings at trial that a defendant could not be held personally liable on a guaranty contained in a commercial real estate lease that the defendant quickly signed in two places before rushing off to the airport to make a flight. This decision was affirmed by the appellate division based on the defense of fraud in the factum.

Information about the advancement of lawyers in the patent profession.

Engineers, scientists, and other technical professionals 'make or break' the development of IP strategy in industry. It is not uncommon to develop IP strategy by drawing in a number of technical experts to work with decision makers and an IP agent or attorney to develop a strategy that others will implement. For example, sometimes an IP strategy for a new invention or new technology is to be developed, or the business wishes to develop an IP strategy to support the growth of new products. In such instances, it is helpful to consider how to select the technical experts to assist this strategic effort.

The recent Federal Circuit decision McKesson Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Med., Inc., No. 2006-1517 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2007) has many patent prosecutors scrambling to file information disclosures after the court found inequitable conduct based on the all-too-common oversight of not cross-citing prior art from similar, co-pending applications and the even more common oversight of not cross-citing allowances and rejections from such applications.

Every U.S. Supreme Court decision affecting intellectual property involves intellectual property attorneys from that moment forward, and all of the pending patent applications that those attorneys are prosecuting. How those attorneys react to the pronouncement of law makes the difference.