The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Festo</i> has been hailed by many as being one of the most significant cases to impact the patent system. <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoektsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.</i>, 122 S.Ct. 1831 (2002). Some say that more significant than <i>Festo</i> is <i>Johnson</i>, 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 <i>Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co.</i>, 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (<i>en banc</i>).
Over the years, I have worked with many in-house counsel as their outside litigation counsel. These experiences serve as the basis for this article, which discusses some of the things that in-house counsel can do with respect to their outside counsel to improve their company's chances of prevailing in patent litigation.
Generally, patent attorneys and patent agents are aware that under its regulations, the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows certain parties, such as small businesses (referred to generally as "small entities"), to pay reduced fees. This can be a big benefit to small businesses and individual inventors, many of whom have only limited funds with which to prosecute a patent. Most attorneys and agents evaluate a client for small entity status based on the "500 employee rule" — if the client has fewer than 500 employees, they are a small entity. This rule serves well for a quick "ball park" determination and the elimination of large clients from eligibility, however determining whether a party truly qualifies as a small entity is more complicated. For example, in certain circumstances, a company that qualifies as a small business under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) guidelines might not necessarily qualify as a small entity for the purpose of paying reduced USPTO fees. Improperly claiming small entity status can open the patent to attack during litigation, and the cost of defending against such a claim can easily exceed the savings on government fees.
A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Like poorly-behaved school children, new technologies and intellectual property (IP) are increasingly disrupting the M&A establishment. Cybersecurity has become the latest disruptive newcomer to the M&A party.
In an effort to minimize the release of toxic gasses from cables in the event of fire, the 2002 version of the National Electric Code ("NEC"), promulgated by the National Fire Protection Association, sets forth new guidelines requiring that abandoned cables must be removed from buildings unless they are located in metal raceways or tagged "For Future Use." While the NEC is not, in itself, binding law, most jurisdictions in the United States adopt the NEC by reference in their state or local building and fire codes. Thus, noncompliance with the recent NEC guidelines will likely mean that a building is in violation of a building or fire code. If so, the building owner may also be in breach of agreements with tenants and lenders and may be jeopardizing its fire insurance coverage. Even in jurisdictions where the 2002 NEC has not been adopted, it may be argued that the guidelines represent the standard of reasonable care and could result in tort liability for the landlord if toxic gasses from abandoned cables are emitted in a fire. With these potential liabilities in mind, this article discusses: 1) how to address the abandoned wires and cables currently located within the risers, ceilings and other areas of properties, and 2) additional considerations in the placement and removal of telecommunications cables going forward.
In a recent case from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Paragon Offshore PLC, the bankruptcy court provided guidance on whether a post-plan effective date litigation trust's distributions constituted disbursements subject to the U.S. Trustee fee "tax."
