Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Restriction practice (<i>ie</i>, the restriction of a patent application to prosecution of a single claimed invention (per filing fee)) has been around since the mid-1800s. In recent years, hyperproliferation of restriction requirements, especially in the biotechnology, chemical and software arts, has occurred. It has not been uncommon for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to assert that a patent application contains 10, 20, even 100 distinct inventions. In fact, the PTO itself recently stated that there had been an application in which the PTO had determined that there were 400,000 distinct inventions. Excessive use of restriction requirements has the potential to stagger a corporate patent budget, because multiple divisional applications must be filed to prosecute all claims, and hence, all "inventions" of the original application. If a company has budgeted for one patent application, it is then faced with filing multiple applications to receive the complete patent coverage that was envisioned. This leads to increased costs of the filing, prosecution and maintenance; multiplication of patents with overlapping subject matter and related claims; shortened statutory patent terms (depending on the timing of filing of the divisional applications), and a question of whether complete patent coverage is truly achieved by compartmentalizing the "invention" into many patents.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Online digital file sharing enjoys massive popularity. Its wide use, however, threatens to destroy the interests of copyright owners. Yet, its broad consumer support and touted technological potential have raised questions about who should bear the risks of such activity, and who — <i>ie,</i> Congress or the courts — should make such determinations.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
We have in recent months discussed advising clients on choosing which state in which to file their divorce actions when they maintain sufficient ties to states other than New York such that those states may exercise jurisdiction. Some of the consequences of making these choices may not be immediately obvious, however, as illustrated by the recent decision rendered by the Court of Appeals in <i>Connelly v. Corcoran</i>, N.Y.L.J. 11/21/03, DOI p. 18, col. 4 (Ciparick, J.).
Money is not seen by these people as the commodity it should be. Instead, it is fraught with feelings, messages and beliefs from family, society and personal experience. If money were seen as a commodity, your job would be much clearer.
Features
In an attempt to bring New York State up to speed with practices in many other states, Judge Judith Kaye recently promulgated a plan for judges to more frequently order parents to complete psycho-educational training related to post-separation parenting. The order essentially establishes guidelines for judges as they make such orders and sets out criteria that must be met by the programs themselves if they are to receive approval for accepting court-ordered families.
This is an update to the article titled, <i>Industry Awaits Regulations Under USA Patriot Act,</i> published in the May 2003 edition of the <i>LJN Equipment Leasing Newsletter</i> (Volume 22, Number 4). As of this writing, the Treasury Department has yet to issue regulations relevant to the "loan and finance company" category of "financial institution."
Features
In a recent administrative decision by the Ohio Department of Taxation, the commissioner held that the repayment of a loan of money should be added to the lease price of tangible personal property subject to the Ohio Sales/Use Tax. The case before the commissioner involved a loan that was made to a lessee to pay off its contract obligations to another lessor, so that the lessee could enter into a lease of new equipment with the new lessor. Both the loan and the lease were separately delineated in the Lease Agreement between the partners. The commissioner concluded that the repayment of the loan was an "expense associated with the leased equipment." As a result, the commissioner held that under Ohio R.C. 5739.01(H)(1), the separately stated refinance charge to pay the interest and principle on the loan could be included as part of the leased price paid for leased equipment making both amounts taxable under the Ohio Sales/Use Tax.
As if the leasing industry needed another obstacle, a major one is now looming on the horizon, courtesy of Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
