Features

In a ruling characterized as 'one of its most important environmental decisions in years' and a 'strong rebuke to the Bush Administration,' the U.S. Supreme Court held recently that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases ('GHG') that contribute to climate change. Linda Greenhouse, <i>Justices Say E.P.A. Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases</i>, New York Times, Apr. 3, 2007 (discussing <i>Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency</i>, No. 05-1120 (U.S. Apr. 2, 2007)). The Supreme Court's ruling in <i>Massachusetts v. EPA</i> could trigger long-anticipated regulation of GHG emissions in the United States, dramatically changing the regulatory environment in which U.S. businesses operate.

Features

Insurers generally require a prospective insured to make representations concerning the criteria the insurer will use to evaluate and approve insurance policies. Insurers invariably rely on any such representations made as part of the application process. In fact, the policies usually expressly state that they will be issued 'in reliance upon the truth' of the representations contained in the applications.

Features

More and more often insureds are being forced to litigate with their insurers to protect rights under insurance policies, while at the same time those insureds must actively defend against the very litigation for which they seek insurance coverage. Indeed, insurers often will pursue litigation against their insureds to establish the absence of any coverage obligation if there appears to be a question regarding the existence of a defense or indemnity obligation with respect to underlying litigation. Alternatively, due to potentially applicable statutes of limitation, or a need to seek judicial intervention to force an insurer to assist in an underlying defense for which the insurer has refused coverage, an insured may be required to file coverage litigation before underlying litigation is concluded.

&#133;

Features

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

As the U.S. economy begins to switch from an industrial model to a knowledge-based one, business owners must adapt their traditional means for conveying the value of their assets. Intellectual property ('IP') is an intangible asset often overlooked by investors in assessing the value of a business, because companies fail to provide a useful metric for its value. IP branding is a business strategy that educates potential investors, licensees, and even competitors about the quantifiable worth of a company's intangible assets, such as patents and trademarks. Although branding has historically functioned in the traditional trademark sense to identify tangible products and services and to distinguish them from competitors, thereby giving the owner of the brand market power, it applies equally to other forms of IP. In a nutshell, the value of a firm or business is equal to not only the inherent value of its IP, but also the value added from the successful branding of a company's intangible assets. This article presents four key steps, with a focus on patents and trademarks, toward adding an IP branding strategy to an existing business model.

Features

In <i>Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc.</i>, 475 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007), the Federal Circuit addressed whether a plaintiff had independent standing to sue on a single patent claim, where the patent-in-suit contained two additional claims directed to subject matter that was discovered in part by a co-inventor who had not assigned his ownership rights in the patent to the plaintiff.

Features

By now, 'knowing the client' is a marketing bromide and a fairly tired one at that. To reinvest the mantra with actionable meaning, law firms must understand the in-house dynamic ' they must know how in-house counsel actually think ' in very specific terms.