If there is one question in the minds and on the lips of potential franchisees, it is "How much money can I make with this concept?" Franchisors may answer this question, of course, but with great care and consideration as to what, how, and when they answer it.

Features

Franchisors thinking of expanding into new jurisdictions, and even those that are not changing anything, should be wary. State and local governments, in this time of deficits, are constantly looking for ways to increase their revenues by broadening the scope of their taxes.

A call center in New Delhi, India, fields questions from a utility customer in a small town in Pennsylvania. An accounting firm in Mumbai, India, provides back-office services for a growing Texas company. An IT company in Perumbavoor, India, provides Internet support to a manufacturer of amplifiers in Washington state.

The real value of a possible acquisition or joint venture partner is often in the potential of their next invention. As advisers, patent managers, and intellectual asset strategists, it is critical that the methodology and tools used for assessing patent quality accurately reflect a would-be ally's technological potency.

Means-plus-function claims are a controversial part of claim drafting. On one hand, patent practitioners face the dilemma of whether or not to use such claims in an application, as they may narrow the scope of the patent protection through their dependence on what is described in the specification. On the other hand, such claims may be a complete, simple and elegant way to claim an invention that uses various types of a certain limitation, as in the software field. If a patent practitioner does decide to use means-plus-function claims, he or she should be aware that using the term "means" does not always mean that the claim is a means-plus-function claim. Likewise, the lack of the term "means" does not always mean that a claim is not in means-plus-function form, as exemplified in the recent case law discussed below.

Many American companies have become increasingly frustrated at what they perceive as the lack of respect for intellectual property rights by foreign countries. While this situation is likely to improve with time as countries such as China and India realize that the protection of intellectual property rights can be an engine for growth, in the short run, U.S. companies should consider whether they are doing enough to prevent the importation of products that were manufactured overseas and that may infringe U.S. patents. Most IP practitioners are certainly aware that U.S. patent owners may sue a foreign manufacturer in federal district court in the United States for patent infringement and can seek damages and an injunction against the further importation of the infringing products. Many IP practitioners may not be familiar, however, with Section 337 investigations that are conducted by the International Trade Commission ("ITC"). This avenue provides a relatively quick remedy against foreign infringers and may offer significant advantages over traditional litigation in federal court.

'

…