Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Features
Highlights of the latest IP news and cases from around the country.
The attorney-client privilege and work product immunity protect a bevy of communications between and among lawyers and clients. How do these doctrines apply when dealing with foreign attorneys and foreign patent agents? The recent decision in <i>Astra Aktiebolag v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals</i>, 208 F.R.D. 92 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), illustrates the complexities of a privilege analysis when communications take place on a global scale. In this case, defendant, Andrx, challenged claims of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity asserted by plaintiff Astra. The disputed documents fell into three categories.
According to a report released earlier this year by the Business Software Alliance, one out of every four business software applications installed in the United States is unlicensed, and thus a potential copyright infringement violation. Numbers like these have turned many businesses into targets in recent years, as software companies have made battling unlicensed software in the workplace a top priority. Armed with the threat of stiff penalties under the copyright law and backed by highly active trade groups, software vendors are increasingly making businesses aware of the unlicensed software problem and requesting that businesses perform a 'software audit,' in which the trade group will use an express or implied threat of litigation to ask that a company submit to a determination of whether unlicensed software exists on its computer system.