Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Is Your Process Patent Being Circumvented? Housey Forces Another Look at Section 271 Protections for Information-Producing Patented Processes Image

Is Your Process Patent Being Circumvented? Housey Forces Another Look at Section 271 Protections for Information-Producing Patented Processes

Andrew J. Olek

Patents containing process claims, especially those where the result of the process is information, such as some research method, business method or software, Internet or telephone-based process patents, may be among the most valuable elements of a portfolio. If used defensively, such patents may provide a competitive advantage to the owner or prevent competitors from entering into a key line of business. If used offensively, these patents offer licensing opportunities on transactions that may occur millions of times per year. Potential licensees that wish to practice the patented processes described above, however, may choose a course other than licensing &mdash; practicing the process abroad and sending the resulting information back into the United States. The recent case of <i>Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,</i> No. 02-1598, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2003), construing 35 U.S.C. '271(g), may make it more difficult to enforce these process patents with respect to such outsourcing and importing activities.

Features

Practicing Before the Court of Federal Claims Image

Practicing Before the Court of Federal Claims

Frederic M. Levy & Rel S. Ambrozy

As the single largest user of cutting-edge technology in the world, the United States, with its powers of eminent domain, is one of the world's largest infringing entities. While the U.S. government frequently uses patented technology without first obtaining a license, many patent owners are reluctant to bring suit against the government for infringement. One apparent reason for this recalcitrance is that many patent owners are unfamiliar with the court in which such actions must be brought: the Court of Federal Claims. Because bringing suit for patent infringement in the Court of Federal Claims differs from practicing in federal district court, there are several factors of which patent owners should be aware in order to successfully prosecute claims in this court.

Case Briefing Image

Case Briefing

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

The latest rulings of importance to your practice.

News from the FDA Image

News from the FDA

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

The latest information for use in your practice, including rulings, draft guidances, seminars, and more.

Features

The FDA's Role in Product Liability Litigation Image

The FDA's Role in Product Liability Litigation

D. Jeffrey Campbell & David C. Uitti

Aside from promulgating regulations, imposing rigorous standards on myriad product manufacturers, and conducting research and studies on all such products, the FDA also takes an active role in participating in an array of product liability litigations both on the state and federal levels. Often, the FDA's position and "expertise" on an issue carry great weight with the courts and consequently can affect the outcome of litigation. Thus, defense counsel involved in product liability matters in which the FDA historically has had an interest should keep abreast of the FDA's positions on the relevant issues.

Features

HIPAA and State Discovery Practices Image

HIPAA and State Discovery Practices

Connie A. Matteo & David C. Uitti

<b><i>Conducting Ex Parte Interviews with Plaintiff's Health Care Providers</i></b> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a complex commercial statutory scheme aimed at regulating the health care industry's use and storage of electronic health information. In drafting this legislation, Congress expressed concern that health care entities must assure their "customers," including patients, "that the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of electronic protected health information they collect, maintain, use, or transmit is protected." 68 Fed. Reg. 8334 (Feb. 20, 2003). HIPAA (Pub. L. No. 104-191) is codified in myriad sections of 18, 26, 29, and 42 of the United States Code. Using the Public Law Number cite and referring to the most recent edition of the United States Code Annotated Tables periodical will permit the reader to pinpoint these scattered United States Code sections.

Features

Will Reinsurers Still 'Follow-the- Settlements'? Image

Will Reinsurers Still 'Follow-the- Settlements'?

John M. Nonna

In the insurance arena, allocations of claims amounts are frequently the subject of litigation among policyholders and insurers. Courts seek to fashion allocation formulas based upon a number of factors including policy language, legal principles and equitable considerations. In the reinsurance context, allocation questions are generally resolved in arbitration. A number of courts, however, have recently addressed the allocation of claims settlements in the reinsurance context. The issue in reinsurance is whether the reinsurer is bound by the cedents' allocation of a loss or settlement amount to the cedents' policies at issue in the underlying claim. Reinsurers are generally bound to "follow-the-fortunes" or "follow-the-settlements" of a cedent provided the cedent has acted reasonably and in good faith and in accordance with the terms of the reinsurance contracts. <i>Aetna Cas. &amp; Sur. Co. v. Home Ins. Co.,</i> 882 F. Supp. 1328, 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). This article surveys recent case law that has addressed the question of whether the "follow-the-settlements" or "follow-the-fortunes" doctrine applies to allocation of claims payments or settlements to reinsured policies.

Features

Case Briefs Image

Case Briefs

Lourdes Estevez Martinez

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

Going for Broker: Recent Developments in Insurance Broker Liability Image

Going for Broker: Recent Developments in Insurance Broker Liability

Andrew M. Reidy & Donald O. Johnson

Brokers long have had certain duties toward policyholders, including the duty to use reasonable skill and care in procuring insurance. Procuring appropriate coverage can be a daunting task for applicants unfamiliar with the intricacies of insurance. The myriad types of policies available and the differing coverages they contain present numerous pitfalls for the unwary. Many companies, even those with risk managers, rely upon brokers to select policy types and carriers, and to notify carriers of losses. Given policyholders' reliance on brokers, there is a standard of care brokers must meet.

Features

Case Notes Image

Case Notes

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Compliance Officers and Law Enforcement: Friends or Foes?
    <b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>As we saw in Part One, regulators have recently shown a tendency to focus on compliance officers who they deem to have failed to ensure that the compliance and anti-money laundering (AML) programs that they oversee adequately prevented corporate wrongdoing, and there are several indications that regulators will continue to target compliance officers in 2018 in actions focused on Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance.
    Read More ›
  • Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
    There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
    Read More ›
  • Artist Challenges Copyright Office Refusal to Register Award-Winning AI-Assisted Work
    Copyright law has long struggled to keep pace with advances in technology, and the debate around the copyrightability of AI-assisted works is no exception. At issue is the human authorship requirement: the principle that a work must have a human author to be eligible for copyright protection. While the Copyright Office has previously cited this "bedrock requirement of copyright" to reject registrations, recent decisions have focused on the role of human authorship in the context of AI.
    Read More ›