The NTP v. RIM case is the latest example of a conundrum facing defendants: how to strategize the confluence of a district court litigation and a Patent Office re-examination proceeding. A district court litigation and a patent office re-examination proceeding both provide methods for challenging the validity of a patent.
Software trainers find the need for computer training never-ending. In many firms, including law firms that advise e-commerce counsel, training programs abound, but users don't seem to be gaining ground fast enough to master the array of desktop applications.
It may not be a match made in heaven, but Internet legal-referral services that promise to match lawyers with potential clients have a powerful new admirer ' the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
Do clients actually read the contracts that lawyers write? Even if your carefully drafted documents are read, do you ever feel that they don't make a difference in how decisions are made, or cases get decided? To paraphrase the Miranda warning immortalized by Sgt. Joe Friday and a long line of TV police officers, sometimes the contract you write can and will be used against you in a court of law ' as happened to a company that tried to enforce a boilerplate rule against a former employee that even its own executives didn't follow.
Since 2000, the number of patent applications filed each year in the United States has been in the range of 300,000 ' 375,000, increasing by approximately 10,000 per year. See USPTO U.S. Patent Statistics Calendar Years 1963-2004. At the same time, the number of interference proceedings and infringement suits has also increased. Establishing a priority date for the invention is at the heart of all interference proceedings and is frequently an issue during prosecution and in infringement suits. When sufficient proof is supplied, a priority date based on a date of 'invention' that is earlier than the presumptive priority date, based upon the date of the filing of the application, may be established. Thus corroborative evidence supporting a date of invention, or the lack thereof, is a significant factor in the outcome of many cases and may expedite prosecution for even those patents and applications that steer clear of these disputes.
On July 21, the Financial Data Protection Act (H.R. 3997) was reported out of the House Financial Services Committee. If passed, this act would impose a business-friendly, national standard for the protection of private consumer data, and notification of consumers in the event of a data-security breach. Although the House leadership sought a quick floor vote on the bill, fierce opposition from consumer groups forced the vote to be rescheduled until after the summer recess. Despite this delay, a number of factors seem to be converging that will make a national data-breach law inevitable.
Negligent hiring cases typically turn on whether a background check that was forgone would have helped to reveal an employee's propensity to erupt in violence or commit fraud. But a new burden of proof may be on the horizon.
Questions of personal jurisdiction, especially with respect to forum contacts arising out of Internet-related activities, have been litigated now for nearly a decade. During that time, courts have had occasion to analyze and rule upon all sorts of activities through the constitutional lenses of 'minimum contacts' and 'purposeful availment.' While most circuits appear to have developed relatively robust lines of authority to analyze whether personal jurisdiction exists where the type and nature of the contacts remain grounded in Internet-related activities, the jurisprudence of the Federal Circuit in this area is of relatively recent vintage. At least one district court appears to have concluded that the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence concerning personal jurisdiction and Web site interactivity remains unsettled. A district court sitting in Indiana noted that, '[t]he Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals have provided very little guidance regarding the concept of personal jurisdiction established through a party's Internet activities.' Aero Industries, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating, Ltd., 396 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967 (S.D. Ind. 2005). This article examines recent patent cases by district courts where Internet-related forum contacts appeared to be present or significant to the courts' rulings on personal jurisdiction grounds.
Corporate officials, including CEOs, general counsel and human resource personnel, are often asked to determine whether to terminate the employment of an individual who is working for a company. In making that determination, the official frequently relies on information and/or recommendations provided by subordinates without conducting an independent investigation regarding the merits of the decision. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit highlights the risks that may accompany such a course of conduct.
The headlines are difficult to miss. The immigration debate is an issue to be contemplated and addressed by businesses, as politicians gear up for elections and Americans take sides in the deliberation. While immigration agents are arresting executives and employees for not complying with immigration law, and as the President of the United States is declaring that employers must be held accountable for their employees, even more restrictive and complex immigration regulations loom in the future. Under this flurry of activity, employers are left to decipher overly complicated, and often vague, laws and regulations in their efforts to find workers, fill open positions and keep operations running.
