Parent Testimony in Custody Disputes
June 30, 2005
Over the years, I have helped prepare many parents to testify in custody matters. In that time, I have discovered crucial areas of preparation that will help produce a competent and confident witness. Parents need guidance on: 1) attitude; 2) behavior; and 3) basic custody topics they should be prepared to discuss. Most lawyers manage to include parts of these three areas when preparing their clients for trial, but frequently, the approach is scattered. The instructions are fine as far as they go, but there are holes in the preparation that, if stumbled into, will certainly trip up and unnerve a witness. School your client on the following elements of testimony and the chances of a favorable outcome will be greatly increased.
International Parental Child Abduction
June 30, 2005
When resolving custody issues between international parents, counsel should address the issue of international travel and should use their best efforts to prevent international parental child abduction. In my practice, I assist attorneys and clients around the world to prevent children from being abducted overseas and to seek their return if they have been abducted. Preventing child abduction is obviously far better than trying to recover abducted children from countries that do not recognize an obligation to reunite families. Unfortunately, clients often seek help too late, lawyers often do not recognize the severity of the situation or do not know what steps to take, and judges often fall back on concepts such as international comity to justify a refusal to issue the necessary orders.
Is It a Mark Or Not? Strategies for Overcoming Refusals Based on Genericness, Ornamentation and Functionality
June 29, 2005
While most trademark practitioners are prepared to handle an initial refusal to register a mark from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") based on likelihood of confusion or descriptiveness grounds, many are considerably less comfortable responding to refusals in which the PTO challenges whether a particular mark even qualifies for trademark status. Such refusals are often based on genericness, ornamentation, or functionality grounds. Strategies for overcoming such refusals are discussed in detail below.
Time-Dependent Claim Terms Remain Stuck in the Past
June 29, 2005
In a decision that is certain to impact both patent prosecution and patent litigation strategies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the literal scope of claims reciting time-dependent claim terms is limited to the technologies existing at the time of the invention. <i>See PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp.</i>, 406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the court stated that such claims would not be infringed by later arising technology even under the doctrine of equivalents. This case, in combination with the Federal Circuit's earlier decision in <i>Kopykake Enterprises, Inc. v. The Lucks Company</i>, 264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001), demonstrates that patent practitioners must be extremely careful when using words such as "conventional," "normal," "standard" or "traditional" in the claims or in specification definitions of claim terms. On the other hand, those accused of infringement should argue for the inclusion of such terms during claim construction, particularly when the accused device comprises technology developed after the invention date of the patent-in-suit.
Drug Labeling Patents: A New Line of Defense for Protecting Old Drugs?
June 29, 2005
Pharmaceutical companies have had some success extending the lives of their patent portfolios by obtaining patents that claim the combination of a known drug, a container for holding it, and a label providing instructions for a new use of the drug. These "drug labeling patents" have given such companies a leg up in their ongoing battle with generic drug manufacturers. However, a little-noticed judicial decision handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") has cast serious doubt over whether drug labeling claims constitute patentable subject matter.
IP News
June 29, 2005
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
IRS Modifies 'Use-It-Or-Lose-It' Rule For Section 125 Cafeteria Plans
June 29, 2005
The Internal Revenue Service has modified the rule prohibiting deferred compensation under a Section 125 cafeteria plan to allow a grace period of up to 2.5 months after the end of the plan year to use the benefits or contributions before those amounts are forfeited under the "use-it-or-lose-it" rule. Notice 2005-42, 2005-23 I.R.B. 1 (May 18, 2005) (the Notice) permits a 2.5- month grace period during which additional expenses can be incurred and which will be reimbursed from contributions made in the plan year preceding the grace period. An employer may adopt a grace period for the current cafeteria plan year by amending the plan before the end of the current plan year.
Gephardt Joins DLA Piper
June 29, 2005
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary has netted former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), who retired from Congress in January.
Around the Firms
June 29, 2005
Tax Shelter Suit Against Sidley Austin, Deutsche Bank May Proceed <br>Brobeck Fight Turns to Venue Choice
USERRA Explained
June 29, 2005
What Is the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994? The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)…
