USPTO's Accelerated Examination Program: Speed at a Price
May 30, 2007
Applicants for U.S. patents are not always aware that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO') generally takes two to four years — and often even longer — before granting a patent. Although the USPTO has long had a rarely used program enabling an applicant to request examination of a case out of turn, that program changed markedly in August 2006, when the USPTO implemented a procedure called 'Accelerated Examination.'
Medimmune v. Genentech and Its Aftermath
May 30, 2007
A rare U.S. Supreme Court decision in January 2007 may change the way parties negotiate patent license agreements in the future. The <i>Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</i> decision has reversed the mainstream position that a patent licensee must discontinue paying royalties to challenge its obligation to pay royalties in a court of law. At face value, the decision might appear to be of little impact to parties of a patent license agreement. However, it could have a dramatic effect on how they approach the negotiation of a license agreement. In addition, the <i>Medimmune</i> decision has already been applied to patent infringement cases outside of the scope of licensing arrangements.
Cohabitation and Alimony
May 30, 2007
In June 2005, the Florida State Legislature amended its modification and enforcement statute, ' 61.14, Fla. Stat., to provide that a 'court may reduce or terminate an award of alimony upon specific written findings ' that ' a supportive relationship has existed between the obligee and a person with whom the obligee resides.' While the statute obviously only applies to the State of Florida, it raises issues for drafters of marital settlement agreements in other states. The purpose of this article is to explore some of the questions that a family-law practitioner should be asking and considering in the drafting of a marital settlement agreement given the Florida experience in the area of post-judgment cohabitation of a recipient spouse.
Movers & Shakers
May 30, 2007
News about lawyers and law firms in the product liability field.
UPDATE: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Lowery Case
May 30, 2007
As the May edition of <i>LJN's Product Liability Law & Strategy</i> went to press, the Eleventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sought to 'unravel some of the mysteries of CAFA's cryptic text' with respect to the 'mass actions' provisions — which the court characterized as an 'opaque, baroque maze of interlocking cross-references that defy easy interpretation.' <i>Lowery v. Alabama Power Co.</i>, __ F. 3d __, 2007 WL 1062769, at *1, *8 (11th Cir. Apr. 11, 2007), affirming <i>Lowery v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.</i>, 460 F. Supp. 2d 1288 (N.D. Ala. 2006). In affirming the grant of remand, the Court of Appeals (in dicta) addressed some of the issues presented in our article 'CAFA: Finding a Method to the Madness of 'Mass Actions'':
<b><i>Software Review:</i></b> Dragon NaturallySpeaking 9
May 30, 2007
Over the last decade, legal organizations have begun to reap the benefits of using computerized practice management systems. The only remaining drawback is document creation manually via hand typing. This process is painful (literally) and costly for highly paid legal professionals. On average, a single attorney or judge spends upwards of $20,000 per year to digitize case information. In times like these, reducing costs, unnecessary errors and providing better service to clients can be the key to your organization's success and profitability.
Case Notes
May 30, 2007
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Office 2007: Challenges and Opportunities for The Legal Community
May 30, 2007
The highly publicized release of Microsoft Office 2007' was received with caution in the legal industry. Promises of greater compatibility with non-Office programs were offset by a drastically redesigned user interface and concern over a new file format. Productivity hits and resulting end-user frustration are anticipated.
Philip Morris USA v. Williams: Another Logical Step in the Control of Punitive Damages Or a Catalyst for a New Approach?
May 30, 2007
On Feb. 20, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in <i>Philip Morris USA v. Williams</i>, ____ U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1057 (2007), the latest in a series of decisions since 1991 exploring the limits that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment imposes on state jury awards of punitive damages. An Oregon jury had awarded the widow of a Marlboro smoker $821,000 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages on a deceit claim against Philip Morris. After a series of appeals, the Supreme Court of Oregon had upheld the punitive damages award. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case to address two specific questions: 1) whether a state-court jury in a punitive damages award may punish the defendant for harm caused to parties not before the court; and 2) whether the $79.5 million punitive damages award was 'grossly excessive' because it was not reasonably related to the actual or potential harm caused by the defendant to the plaintiff. In a 5-4 decision, the Court answered the first question 'no' and declined to address the second question until the Oregon state courts had considered the case further.
Lawyer Ads in Cyberspace
May 30, 2007
Nearly 30 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <i>Bates v. State Bar of Arizona</i> (433 U.S. 350 (1977; holding that 'blanket suppression' of attorney advertisements was an unconstitutional interference with First Amendment rights. However, the Court also recognized that some regulation of attorney advertising was necessary to protect consumers who lacked legal sophistication. Thus, the Court ruled that statements in lawyer ads that might pass muster in other industries could be misleading and were subject to reasonable regulation as to time, place and manner. The conflict between the First Amendment right to speech and the necessity and reasonableness of regulation of attorney advertising has continued to evolve since <i>Bates</i>, responding not just to changing mores regarding professional conduct, but to the challenges of new technology media.
