Features
Conceding Liability
The authority to concede liability derives from a defendant's inherent right not to contest claims made by a plaintiff. There has been a general reluctance to concede liability on the part of the defense bar, based as much on the inability to recognize what is to be gained by such an approach as on an unrealistic fear of what may be lost. However, conceding liability can provide a valuable opportunity to enhance one's credibility, as well as a vehicle to provide damage and expense control. In the appropriate case, conceding liability can be a particularly effective strategy, which tends to be underused. What are the risks and benefits of conceding liability? In which cases is it appropriate to employ the strategy? We address herein some of the practical aspects.
Limiting Access to Investigational Drugs
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in March began reconsideration of its decision that held it was unconstitutional for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withhold experimental drugs from terminally ill patients. The order for rehearing en banc was issued in November 2006. The case pits dying, often desperate, patients against the FDA and its policies aimed at protecting the public from dangerous and unproven medications.
Features
The Many Shields of Immunity
Physicians and policymakers have long decried the risk of malpractice liability as the greatest obstacle to volunteerism in health care. Over time, lawmakers across the country have responded to these concerns, and today there is an array of federal and state laws that protect volunteer health care providers from lawsuits arising from the provision of charitable medical care. Prudent defense counsel should be aware of the laws that exist to protect volunteer health care providers, and should know just when those laws apply. What federal and state statutes immunize providers of charitable health care, and how can those statutes operate to protect defendants in medical malpractice actions?
Movers & Shakers
This month marks the beginning of a new feature in which <i>Patent Strategy & Management</i> expands its coverage to provide information about the advancement of lawyers in the patent profession.
Determinants of Patent Value in U.S. Litigation
Part One of this series discussed reasonable royalty damages and the questions that a prospective litigant can ask to evaluate its litigation exposure. This month's installment continues the discussion of those questions.
Damages under the Entire Market Value and Convoyed Sales Rules
In patent infringement cases, defining the scope of the real injury to the patentee poses a challenge when the patent only covers a portion of a product or system. Courts have developed the entire market value and convoyed sales rules in an attempt to address the true economic loss to the patentee caused when the patented invention is part of a more complex product or of a larger system of goods sold together. These doctrines have been criticized for a number of years and are the targets of legislative activity.
Features
The Patent Marking Statute
Since 1842, U.S. law has required patent owners to provide notice of their patent rights to the public by marking patented articles. The current statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. '287(a), provides that a failure to mark bars a patentee from obtaining damages for the period before it provided a defendant in a patent infringement action with actual notice of its infringement allegations. This can have a significant financial impact, as up to six years of potential damages may be lost.
IP Branding: Adding Value to a Business
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
'The Continuum of Value'
Despite no seeming fundamental economic differences, there have been occasions where divorce courts in different states have reached different conclusions of value for the same type of business. These states reach such different conclusions as to what constitutes marital property because they have different views as to the meaning of the term 'value.' This article represents a summary of some of our findings concerning the application of the premises and standards of value in divorce matters.
Features
IP News
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›
- Cutting Off the Stream: How United States v. Silver Affects "Stream of Benefits" or "Retainer" BriberyAlthough the court stressed that, by vacating certain of former NY State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's counts of conviction, it was clarifying and not altering the "as opportunities arise" theory, it nevertheless emphasized that this theory requires particularity with respect to the "question or matter" that is the subject of the bribe payor and recipient's corrupt agreement.Read More ›