Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Register

LJN Newsletters

  • As law firms grow in size and complexity, they are increasingly realizing that professional development of their lawyers can no longer be left to the haphazard of on-the-job experience. Competing effectively today requires strategic thinking about cultivation of the law firm's primary business asset: its lawyers.

    April 01, 2003Bryn R. Vaaler & Nancy O. Fraser
  • The Supreme Court's recent Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) opinion, Moseley et al. dba Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. et al., has a number of practical consequences. It settled an issue that had split the Circuits for years: whether actual dilution or a "likelihood of dilution" must be shown to establish an FTDA violation. Dilution law seeks to prevent the diminution or whittling away of a famous trademark's value through another's commercial use of the same or a similar mark. That somewhat abstract harm suggests the less concrete "likelihood of dilution" standard would more logically apply.

    April 01, 2003Karen Marie Kitterman
  • Can the victim of infringement of a creative work find relief under the trademark law, when relief under the copyright law may not be available, without the need to prove likely consumer confusion? With the Circuit courts split, the Supreme Court recently agreed to decide the issue in Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., U.S. NO. 02-428 (granting cert. on January 10, 2003)

    April 01, 2003Jeanne Hamburg
  • Highlights of the latest intellectual property cases from around the country.

    April 01, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • As if the recent attacks on the tax-exempt status of Internet transactions were not enough for e-commerce vendors to worry about, a new problem has come to light for companies that sell goods or services via an Internet Web site. PanIP, LLC (PanIP), a company based in San Diego, has initiated lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against over 50 companies transacting business over their Internet Web sites, alleging that such activity constitutes infringement of two patents owned by PanIP.1 The patents asserted by PanIP are generally directed to "data processing systems designed to facilitate commercial, financial and educational transactions between multimedia terminals"2 and to "a system for filing applications with an institution from a plurality of remote sites, and for automatically processing said applications in response to each applicant's credit rating obtained from a credit reporting service."3

    April 01, 2003Jeffrey P. Dunning
  • The FDA has just approved (April 24) the first drug eluting stent for angioplasty procedures to open clogged coronary arteries. In most cases, a stent is left permanently in the artery to keep the vessel open after angioplasty. The new stent slowly releases a drug, and has been shown in clinical studies to significantly reduce the rate of re-blockage that occurs with existing stents.

    April 01, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • Due to the rising cost of "defensive medicine," the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation to limit or ban punitive damages in product liability lawsuits over injuries allegedly caused by FDA-approved products. 2003 H.R. 5. The HEALTH "Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost Timely Healthcare" Act of 2003 was introduced in the House on February 5. This bill passed in the House on March 13 and is currently on the calendar of the Senate.

    April 01, 2003Rebecca M. Stadler
  • The latest rulings of importance to you and your practice.

    April 01, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • The latest information you need to know.

    April 01, 2003ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Festo has been hailed by many as being one of the most significant cases to impact the patent system. Festo Corp. v. Shoektsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 122 S.Ct. 1831 (2002). Some say that more significant than Festo is Johnson, in which the Federal Circuit held that subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a patent cannot be covered by the doctrine of equivalents. See Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).

    April 01, 2003Jack S. Barufka and Emily Bell