Former Attorney Cannot Sue Counsel Who Takes Over a Case. US District Judge Berle M. Schiller of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presented a seven-page opinion declaring that because a lawyer's withdrawal from a case severs the attorney-client relationship, an attorney who then assumes the case and obtains a settlement cannot be subjected to a lawsuit for part of the fee; nor can the new attorney be sued for intervention in the former lawyer's relationship. Frederick v. Davitt, No. 02-8263. Also, after discovering their contingent fee agreement's ubiquitously worded arbitration clause, which called for any fee debate's mediation, Judge Schiller dismissed the former attorneys' claims against the client.

Features

Management teams in law firms have a big job ahead. Namely, staying ahead of the competition, providing value added to clients, identifying team leaders and providing appropriate training for those leaders, assessing current service offerings and building differentiation into those offerings. In sum, there is a lot on management teams' plates, to say the least.

Associates and partners have different attitudes about certain things. One is regarding evaluations. Associates generally want feedback and evaluations on their work and performance. In fact, they usually complain if they are not receiving them. On the other hand, partners in many firms resist or even resent being evaluated, although it's often the initial step in determining a partner's compensation.

Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.

Features

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that will have a significant impact on the uniformity of patent law. As a result of <i>Holmes v. Vornado</i>, 535 U.S. 826, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 62 USPQ2d 1801 (2002), many cases involving patent counterclaims will be directed away from the Federal Circuit and into the regional circuit courts of appeals. Although this decision clarifies the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, it does so at the expense of consistency in patent law.

Features

In <i>Bayer AG v. Schein Pharm., Inc.</i>, 301 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the Federal Circuit articulated a new 'material effect' test for the best mode requirement. The court affirmed the validity of a patent covering the antibiotic drug ciprofloxacin on the grounds that it properly claimed priority to a parent application that satisfied the best mode requirement. With the priority date of the parent application, the patent was not invalidated under section 102(d) by an earlier filed foreign patent. The three-judge panel agreed that the parent application met the best mode requirement; however, the panel disagreed as to why the best mode requirement was satisfied. The majority reviewed the prior case law and found 'that the best mode of making and using the invention need be disclosed if it materially affects the properties of the claimed invention.' <i>Id.</i> at 1319-1320. Judge Radar concurred in the result, but strenuously objected to the creation of this additional criterion.

When should a third party be able to incorporate a trademark in a domain name as a form of parody? Historically the question of parody has more often been raised in copyright infringement cases where the defendant concedes that he has used a copyrighted work, but has done so in order to make a social criticism or comment. Generally courts will examine such claims by looking at whether the amount of the copyrighted work taken was no more than necessary to conjure up the original in the mind of the targeted audience and whether the parody was commenting on the copyrighted work or merely using the creativity of another to make a statement about some unrelated topic or issue. <i>See eg, Elsmere Music, Inc v. National Broadcasting Co.</i>, 482 F. Supp. 741, 747 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), aff'd, 623 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980) (finding Saturday Night Live's use of 'I Love Sodom' to be protected parody of 'I Love New York').

The United States Supreme Court decided its first Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) case on March 4, 2003, in <i>Moseley et al. dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. et al.</i> The Court granted <i>certiorari.</i> to settle the Circuits' differing opinions on whether relief under the FTDA requires a showing of objective proof of actual injury to the economic value of a famous mark, as opposed to a presumption of harm arising from a subjective 'likelihood of dilution' showing.