Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
A comprehensive list of key cases discussed in this issue.
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article.</b></i>This commentary discusses ' critically ' a rule recently adopted by a unanimous Court of Appeals in a case in which a housing cooperative was attempting to evict a tenant deemed objectionable by his fellow shareholders. <i>40 W. 67th St. Corp. v. Pullman</i> (5/13/03). In order to understand fully the significance of the <i>Pullman</i> rule, it must be viewed in context. The general subject is the power of a landlord to terminate a tenancy based on a lease provision authorizing such action if the tenant becomes objectionable. More specifically, the issue is what role the courts are to play in determining whether or not the tenant did or did not do the things that he is accused of doing, which things, we will assume, all would agree would render him objectionable.
In the wake of the recent corporate scandals, such as Enron and WorldCom it is only a matter of time before the sanctity of Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) is challenged.
Features
It seems fair to say that a major goal of the patent system ' to be a channel of technological disclosure ' remains largely unfulfilled. Scientists and engineers seldom, if ever, consult patents in the course of their work. It is the technical and scientific journals that are consulted by practitioners of a particular field, and such journal articles ' while almost always containing numerous references to other such journal articles ' seldom make reference to a patent. This article considers whether the willful infringement doctrine (<i>ie,</i> the punitive enhancement of damages for willful infringement) is a significant cause of the relative unimportance of patent disclosures to the process of technological innovation. This article also asks whether two fundamental objectives of the patent system, disclosure of patents and protection of the patent holder, might not be better served by elimination of the doctrine. While it would seem quite reasonable to question the further perpetuation of the willful infringement doctrine, given its potential chilling effect on those seeking to consult patent disclosures, this question is rarely asked, if at all, presumably due to the doctrine's antiquity.
Features
<b>1. TOO LATE TO FILE U.S. AND INTERNATIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS.</b>Unfortunately for many good technology companies, it may be too late to file for patent protection. The current U.S. rule generally provides applicants with a one-year grace period during which a patent application must be filed after certain public or private disclosures of the invention. Such disclosures may arise, for example, from a mere 'offer for sale' of the technology, even if the product has not yet been built or prototyped. In comparison, the foreign rule, which applies to many industrialized jurisdictions, such as Japan and various European countries, does not give applicants the benefit of any grace period after a public disclosure has occurred. Thus, it is legally compelling for applicants to consider filing for patent protection as soon as possible after invention. Although in some situations there may be some special exception that allows for a late filing, it is not advisable for applicants to count on those exceptions.
In the course of performing due diligence investigations on new technology companies (usually within the context of a potential venture capital investment), an attorney may uncover a number of common mistakes related to such companies' management of their intellectual property.
Features
It is important for a patent attorney to be able to quickly and effectively advise a client who is filing a large number of international patent applications as to where such patent applications should be filed. One tool that can be useful in such situations is a 'country template.'
Features
Chances are that if your company is involved in research and development of new technology there is a standards setting organization exploring the potential standardization of such technology. While there are clear benefits to participation in standards organizations — keeping abreast of industry developments, targeting product development toward standard compliant products, steering research and intellectual property protection into potential areas of future standardization — such participation does not come without certain risks. Whether you are in-house counsel or outside counsel, you may be called upon to advise participants in standard-setting bodies about intellectual property issues or to participate yourself. You may also be asked to review patent policy of the standard-setting body that sets forth the disclosure and notification requirements with respect to patents for that organization. Here are some potential patent pitfalls that can catch the unwary off-guard.