Jonathan Gordon
&
Michelle M. LeCointe
Negotiating and drafting the terms of a patent license can be difficult, contentious, and time consuming, especially when the parties are in a hurry to proceed with the broader business venture of which the license is but one part. However, those who decide to skip or skimp on the troublesome details of license drafting will often later face the consequences of a poorly thought-out license relationship — consequences that are significantly more troublesome and costlier than the burden of thoroughly and accurately documenting the intended terms of the relationship at the outset. Even more frustrating is the experience of drafting a license that diligently attempts to address the business or legal issues thought to be important at the outset of the license relationship, only to discover later that a crucial (but possibly latent) problem was overlooked or inadequately addressed.
Features
Brenda Sandburg
Patent lawyers have long chafed under rules that require them to relinquish attorney-client privilege in certain patent cases.
Robert M. Asher
Inter partes re-examination can stop patent litigations dead in their tracks. The procedure often leads to narrowing or even cancellation of the patent claims. Practitioners may shy away from inter partes re-examination because it is considered an unsatisfactory substitute for the courtroom when seeking to prove invalidity. However, many may be overlooking that when it comes to proving noninfringement, inter partes re-examination has tremendous value.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
National rulings of interest to your practice.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
Merrick T. Rossein
A plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an arbitrator must decide whether class action arbitration in a consumer action is authorized. <i>Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle</i>, 123 S.Ct. 2402, (June 23, 2003). Four Justices concluded that whether or not the contracts forbid class arbitration is a disputed issue of contract interpretation and that such a dispute must be decided by an arbitrator. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment. This decision is likely to directly impact the arbitration of statutory discrimination claims as well as other employment arbitrations. The question is in what ways and to what effect.
Dan L. Hargrove
Throughout its history, the United States has opposed a standing professional military. Instead, our nation has structured its armed forces so that our national security heavily relies upon reservists, particularly after Vietnam. Since 9/11 alone, nearly 200,000 reservists have been mobilized, with thousands more expected to be so. And many of those reservists who completed their initial mobilization were later remobilized for a second time. In a dramatic departure from the past, the Defense Department has begun deploying Guardsman to such places as the Balkans, the Sinai, Iraq, and almost everywhere else the regular forces go.
Marc Betinsky
Consider the following situation: An employee anticipates that his employment is about to be terminated, for what he believes to be discriminatory or otherwise unlawful reasons. After consulting with an attorney, he decides to tape-record conversations with his supervisors, in the hopes of recording a "smoking gun" comment. A short time later, the employee is terminated, and he later commences litigation in federal court against his employer.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Willard H. DaSilva
On November 18, 2003, the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in a divided 4-3 decision, ruled that a city or town clerk may not deny a marriage license to a couple on the grounds that they are not man and woman. The basis for the decision of the court is that the Commonwealth may not deny "the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage of two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry" and still comply with the constitutionally safeguarded rights of due process and equal protection. The decision has far-reaching ripple effects that impact upon same-sex couples throughout the country and the attorneys who represent them, and is not limited to the geographical boundaries of the state of Massachusetts.
