Features
James J. Elacqua, Andrew N. Thomases
&
Keith P. Gray
The near future may bring fundamental changes to patent practice in the United States. On Sept. 26, 2003, the Federal Circuit ordered, <i>sua sponte,</i> the <i>en banc</i> consideration of the Eastern District of Virginia's decision in <i>Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp,</i> 344 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In its order, the court sought answers to questions that analyze its current precedent that authorizes the trier of fact to impose an adverse inference of willful patent infringement where accused infringers invoke the attorney-client privilege. On Feb. 5, 2004, the Federal Circuit heard arguments in the appeal. A decision is pending.
Features
Jane Shay Wald
The <i>Victoria's Secret</i> case raised the hurdle for plaintiffs claiming dilution under the Lanham Act, generally making it much harder to prevail in a federal dilution action. The Supreme Court followed the plain meaning of the statute in interpreting the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA), 15 U.S.C. §1125(c) [Sec. 43(c) of the Lanham Act] to require a showing of "actual dilution" in <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.,</i> 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (hereinafter "<i>Victoria's Secret</i>"). The Supreme Court got to this position in part by contrasting 43(c) with the language of state dilution laws, which in many cases do not require actual dilution (and recognize tarnishment, besides). Some state laws can, in theory, help plaintiffs with a dilution claim. This article examines how this is actually playing out.
Features
Jonathan E. Moskin
Given the expense and burden of resolving false advertising cases in federal court, the promise of an expedient and less expensive alternate forum invites attention. Adding to speed and thrift an assurance that ads will be assessed by experts in the field makes the forum more interesting still. What is this alluring avenue of adjudication? For 33 years, the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau (NAD) has sought to provide just such a mechanism. Yet, even for long-time veterans of federal proceedings, the NAD may be terra incognita. One recent decision by the NAD, <i>In re Distillerie Stock USA Ltd.,</i> NAD Case No. 4197 (June 2004), reveals both benefits and drawbacks of the forum, particularly in how some familiar yet some unique allocations of the burdens of proof can produce results both similar to and quite unlike those in federal court.
Features
Mark Lewis
&
Victoria Ford
There has been a great deal of debate recently in the English courts and legal press about two key issues relating to Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). First, whether the court has the power to order unwilling parties to undertake ADR. Second, whether a successful party should be penalized in costs if it has refused ADR.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Susan H. Morton
&
David W. Oppenheim
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
Arthur L. Pressman
Uniformity and predictability are often lacking from judicial treatment of cases involving vicarious liability claims against franchisors, yet uniformity and predictability are the hallmarks of a successful franchise system, and the engines that have driven franchising to occupy such a prominent position in the domestic and worldwide economy.
Features
H. Jackson Knight
Many technically intensive companies utilize patent liaisons to augment their intellectual property (IP) work. Patent liaisons work with patent attorneys and inventors and can have a wide variety of job responsibilities, thereby helping to provide additional trained "legal" resources to a business in a very economical manner.
Matthew W. Siegal
&
Daniel C. Wiesner
Is it the chicken or the egg? Your client InventCo thinks it has several great new products, but it needs money to bring the products to the U.S. marketplace. Tooling costs money, as does producing sufficient inventory, and don't even mention what needs to be put aside to pay the patent attorney ' all for products that might flop in the market. "You've got to spend money to make money," InventCo's president says. "Too bad I can't offer them for sale now and see if any of them actually sell before I start the patenting process, but I remember what you told me about 1-year on-sale bars and what happed to that Pfaff guy," he continues. "Hold on a minute," you tell him, "there's a way around <i>Pfaff</i>."
Features
Iona Niven Kaiser
The term "nanotechnology" generally refers to the fabrication and manipulation of materials and devices on the scale of about 1-100 nanometers, and has become one of the key technology buzzwords for 2004. The passage of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Pub. L. No. 108-153, which authorized $3.7 billion in federal funding from 2005 through 2008 for the support of nanotechnology research and development, has fueled the fervor over nanotechnology. This substantial funding came as the scientific community and industries as diverse as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and petrochemicals were increasingly discovering that, when reduced to nanoscale size, ordinary bits of matter often manifest radically different physical properties. <i>See</i> Joseph Brean, <i>The Next Big (Little) Thing,</i> National Post (Feb. 6, 2004).
