The June 2005 acquittal of HealthSouth founder and Chief Executive Officer Richard M. Scrushy on all charges in a high-profile federal corporate fraud prosecution was widely considered a surprising setback for the Department of Justice (DOJ). But even before the final acquittals in Scrushy, the trial judge's finding that the government's civil and criminal investigations had "improperly merged" resulted in the suppression of Scrushy's SEC deposition and the dismissal of three perjury charges based upon that testimony. United States v. Scrushy, 366 F. Supp.2d 1134, 1137 (N.D.Ala. 2005). Judge Karon Bowdre's decision provides an opportunity to review the law governing the proper conduct of parallel proceedings, and to ask when co-operation between civil enforcement and prosecutorial authorities contravenes those standards.
- January 03, 2006Jefferson M. Gray
National rulings of interest to you and your practice.
January 03, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |As recently as 6 months ago, many commentators were proclaiming the demise of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection in the context of corporate internal investigations. It now appears that these predictions were premature. Law enforcement officials are becoming more sensitive to the legitimate reasons for protecting a corporation's ability to assert these privileges. Although, from the viewpoint of business, there's still a long way to go, companies have reason to be hopeful.
January 03, 2006Sean G. BlackmanHighlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
December 05, 2005Compiled by Eric AgovinoThe day you have been waiting for has finally come. The patent application that your company believes covers key technology has issued. Your company may be, for example, a startup with its first marketable product or an established business trying to extend its presence in a niche market or enter into a new one. The patent provides your company the desired protection of the marketplace. There's just one problem. It appears that the scope of the patent may need to be altered to improve your position in the marketplace. For instance, a competitor may have successfully designed around the scope of your patent's claims. In some such instances, there may not be a pending application by which you, the patent owner, can capture the competitor, and post-issuance practice is the only mechanism. So, amending your claims, eg, to read on your competitor's products may seem like a sure way to capture him as an infringer and strengthen your position.
December 05, 2005Paul K. Legaard and Margaret M. BuckIf tsunamis, hurricanes and terrorist strikes have taught us anything, it is that emergency preparedness is vital to minimizing damage and facilitating recovery. Trademark infringement is no different. Trademark infringement preparedness can help lay the groundwork for an effective response by facilitating communication, reducing delay, ensuring comprehensive gathering of key response items, allowing for productive use of human resources, and providing for efficient allocation of monetary resources.
December 05, 2005Douglas W. LytleAn interesting split in the Circuits has developed over whether costumes are per se copyright ineligible. According to one line of cases, costumes are entitled to copyright protection if the design is unique. Another line of cases, however, seemingly endorsed by Second Circuit dicta, suggests that because the purpose of a costume is to allow its wearer to masquerade, the design of the costume is not conceptually separable from the clothing itself.
December 05, 2005Stephen W. Feingold, Marc A. Lieberstein, and Danielle R. MendelsohnHighlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
December 05, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
December 05, 2005Charles Miller, Daryl A. Hart and Griffith C. TowleIn an Oct. 25, 2005 decision, a Connecticut District Court denied an insurance company's motion to set aside a $2.3 million verdict on the plaintiff-agent's wrongful termination claim, concluding that company's relationship with its independent sales agent constituted a franchise under the Connecticut Franchise Act, §42-133e et seq. ("CFA").
December 05, 2005Kevin M. Kennedy