Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
National rulings of interest to your practice.
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
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.
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.
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.
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
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.
At its Annual Meeting in August 2003, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association adopted Standards of Practice for Lawyers Representing Children in Custody Cases (Standards). These standards are the result of a 10-year project undertaken by the ABA Section of Family Law, involving lawyers, judges and legal scholars. Adoption of the Standards establishes clear ABA policy for lawyers representing children in custody cases. In 1996, the ABA adopted similar Standards of Practice for representing a child in Abuse and Neglect Cases.
All family lawyers know that a custody trial is about what is best for the children. Parents may think they understand this, but often do not "own" the concept because they are so obsessed with their own problems. The hurt and anger over what has happened clouds their thinking. Facing the possibility of part-time parenting or substantially reduced parenting time, they have difficulty focusing on what is best for the children. This is not to imply that the parents do not care about their children's needs, but getting them to express their concerns for their children instead of using court time to vent, tattle, bicker and complain, is often a formidable task.