CLIENT CO-MARKETING CONT'D. - Following up on our last blog, what else will in house counsel appreciate your asking? There are many more subtle tools at your disposal which will contribute to relationship building.
CLIENT CO-MARKETING - This new topic covers how to "co-market" with your client. To be sure, marketing the law firm is not an us-them proposition. How you can recruit inside counsel and even CEO's as parties to your own marketing and business development efforts is explored.
SELECTION - This is the fourth and final criterion a law firm team needs to identify when pursuing a client. Just what concerns and experiences will be influencing final selection? If you have mastered the other 3 Red Zone components, HIDDEN DECISION MAKING, RELATIONSHIPS AND RETENTION, and PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS, let's explore SELECTION.
SELECTION - This is the fourth and final criterion a law firm team needs to identify when pursuing a client. Just what concerns and experiences will be influencing final selection? If you have mastered the other 3 Red Zone components, HIDDEN DECISION MAKING, RELATIONSHIPS AND RETENTION, and PERSONAL CONSIDERATIONS, let's explore SELECTION.
The Second Circuit recently ruled that, in the absence of specific Congressional legislation, owners of famous foreign trademarks must show use within the United States to avail themselves of the protections offered by American federal law. The Court of Appeals also certified questions to the district court as to whether New York common law protects a famous foreign trademark that only has been used in a foreign country. The case is an instructive overview of the law of trademark abandonment and the famous marks doctrine.
Continuing the recent trend of court decisions expanding jurisdiction over declaratory judgment challenges to patents, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the 'Federal Circuit' or the 'court') opened the door to increased challenges to drug patents in <i>Teva Pharms. USA Inc. v. Novartis Pharms. Corp.</i>, 482 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Federal Circuit ruled that a generic drug company could, under the appropriate circumstances, pre-emptively seek a declaratory judgment that certain drug patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book are invalid or not infringed. Generic drug companies thus can have a court resolve patent infringement issues before undertaking the expense of launching a generic drug under the threat of patent litigation and any resulting injunction or treble damages for willful infringement. The <i>Teva</i> decision is expected to increase declaratory judgment challenges by generic drug companies and help speed generic drugs to market when those challenges are successful.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
