Partnership Investments
February 28, 2007
With profits per partner continuing to rise, many attorneys have more discretionary income available for investment. In addition to investing directly in both traditional and nontraditional sources, some partners may also choose to invest (either inside or outside their law firms) in opportunities that arise in the law firm setting.
The Motion to Disqualify: A Recurring Theme in the Modern Law Firm
February 28, 2007
High-stakes disputes often generate hardball tactics by the parties and their attorneys. Even before the lawsuit is filed, attorneys are claiming conflicts of interest, on the part of opposing counsel, with increasing regularity and fervor. As law firms grow, clients merge or divest divisions, and attorney departures and arrivals become more common, conflicts of interest — and the possibility for disqualification motions — become a larger problem for law firms. Do such motions present a legitimate complaint mechanism for wronged clients, or simply one more arrow in the quiver of the scorched earth litigator? Regardless of what you think is the correct answer to the preceding question, disqualification motions and threats are unquestionably something that modern law firms are forced to address with increasing frequency.
A Blurry Distinction with a Huge Difference: Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Speech
February 28, 2007
Imagine the following two scenarios, and try to figure out what the real difference is. First, your competitor blatantly lies in its advertising about the effectiveness of its products; second, your competitor blatantly lies to a reporter about the effectiveness of its products, and the reporter publishes the lies in an article or in a magazine. It seems like the same situation, but it is not. With the first, you could sue for false advertising because the advertisement is 'commercial' speech, whereas with the second, you cannot because the magazine article is 'non-commercial' speech. A similar difference is presented if a newspaper uses a picture of a celebrity without the celebrity's consent to highlight a news article, as opposed to a company using the same celebrity picture in a print advertisement, in the same newspaper, to promote the company. A breach of the celebrity's right of publicity claim is not available against the newspaper because the news article is 'non-commercial,' but is available against the company because the print advertisement is 'commercial.' The rationale for both is that while the First Amendment fully protects 'non-commercial' speech, it protects 'commercial' speech in a significantly limited way.
IP News
February 28, 2007
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Medimmune: New Rules for Patent Licenses?
February 28, 2007
The Supreme Court's <i>Medimmune</i> decision relates directly to the federal courts' jurisdictional requirement of case or controversy, but by overruling the Federal Circuit's <i>Gen-Probe</i> decision it may also have changed the balance of power between patentees and licensees.
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.: Guidance on Extending a Patent Holder's Rights to Reach Downstream Parties Who Assemble Components into a Patented Combination
February 28, 2007
In <i>LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.</i>, 453 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit held that a license to a patent covering a combination of elements, that authorized the licensee to sell components of the invention, but disclaimed a downstream license or implied license to the licensees' customers to practice the combination, constituted a conditional sale, thus defeating the application of the patent exhaustion doctrine. It further held that a downstream point of sale notice that no implied license was conveyed similarly defeated the first sale doctrine. In addition, it held that no implied license could be found on those facts. As a result, the patent holder was free to assert a claim of patent infringement against parties who were authorized purchasers of components of its invention, when such parties assembled the resulting combination. This decision provides the clearest guidance to date on how a patent holder whose patents cover a combination of components can extend its rights to reach downstream parties who assemble those components into the patented combination. This article discusses this case in the context of pre-existing authority on patent exhaustion and implied license, and highlights some of the considerations associated with drafting agreements to avoid patent exhaustion and implied licenses.
Sales
February 28, 2007
The most recent verdicts for you and your practice.
Eminent Domain
February 28, 2007
In-depth analysis of the latest rulings.
Brokers
February 28, 2007
The latest verdicts.
