Connecticut Begins Civil Unions
October 06, 2005
Connecticut became the latest state to implement new rights for same-sex couples on Oct. 1, when its civil unions statute came into effect. With the new law, Connecticut joins California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Vermont as the states offering some type of legal recognition for same-sex partnerships. The 2000 U.S. Census found approximately 8000 self-identified same-sex couples in Connecticut, one quarter of whom had children under 18 living in their households.
News Briefs
October 06, 2005
Recent news of importance to you and your practice.
Has the U.S. Supreme Court Already Decided the Same-Sex Marriage Question?
October 06, 2005
In the three decades of litigation over the definition of marriage, challenges to state marriage laws in state courts have predominated. There have been exceptions and, recently, a number of decisions have addressed federal constitutional claims that the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is discriminatory.
Major Breakthroughs for CA Couples
October 06, 2005
In the past month, California cemented its reputation as a leader in expanding the rights of gay individuals and couples through a key court decision and unprecedented legislative action. The two actions have been cited by LGBT proponents as evidence that legal precedent and public opinion are strongly on their side, while leaving conservatives questioning how much longer they can stem the tide of change.
Federal Legislative Initiatives Now in Play
October 06, 2005
When people think about proposed federal legislation regarding recognition of same-sex partnerships, they tend to focus on the negative, especially the Federal Marriage Amendment. Furthermore, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) excludes same-sex partners from 1138 federal benefits and protections. However, several pieces of legislation that would have positive effects for LGBT partners have been introduced in the 109th Congress. These bills benefit same-sex partners in various ways.
All Tied Up: Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc. and Trident, Inc.
October 06, 2005
On June 20, 2005, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in an important case for intellectual property holders seeking to navigate the sometimes-conflicting dictates of patent and antitrust law. In <i>Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., and Trident, Inc.</i>, 396 F.3d 1492 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent establishes a rebuttable presumption of market power in a tying case brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The ruling has put the Federal Circuit at odds with several lower courts, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and a host of academic critics, each of which maintain that patent rights do not, by themselves, give rise to an inference of market power, and that any rule to the contrary has the potential to reduce legitimate incentives to innovate.
The Preclinical Research Statutory Infringement Exemption: How Far Back Is 'Reasonably Related'?
October 06, 2005
On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. '271(e)(1) to the "use of patented compounds in preclinical studies ... as long as there is a reasonable basis for believing that the experiments will produce 'the types of information that are relevant to an [Investigational New Drug application ("IND")] or [New Drug Application ("NDA")].'" <i>Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.</i>, __ U.S. __, 125 S.Ct. 2372, 2383-84 (U.S. 2005) (quoting Brief of U.S. as Amicus Curiae 23) ("<i>Integra II</i>").
Industrywide Patent Enforcement Strategies
October 06, 2005
Enforcement strategies in an industrywide patent enforcement campaign may differ from strategies advantageous in a single litigation. In a single litigation scenario, the goal is to maximize the recovery in the present case without any consideration given to possible effects the present lawsuit may have on future cases. Although this may be somewhat shortsighted as the same players (plaintiff, defendant, and attorneys) are likely to cross paths again and their previous experience will undoubtedly affect their mutual expectations and behavior in subsequent encounters, in reality it is not taken into consideration as often as it should be. Not so in an industrywide enforcement campaign, where the goal is to maximize the monetary recovery for the patent or patent portfolio with respect to all infringers. In this scenario, each case must be considered not in isolation but in the context of the overall enforcement campaign.
