Search

Just days before the U.S. government declared China one of 2005's worst infringers of intellectual property, two Needle & Rosenberg attorneys traveled to Beijing for what they say is the country's first-ever international intellectual property rights conference.

The Supreme Court has recently abolished the presumption that a patent confers 'market power' on the patent owner, ending the presumption of antitrust liability arising from the conditioning of a patent license to the purchase of unpatented articles. <i>See Illinois Tool Works v. Indep. Ink, Inc.</i>, 126 S. Ct. 1281 (2006). As discussed below, this decision will have wide-ranging implications to the field of patent licensing, where fear of antitrust liability has tended to dampen the creativity of patent license schemes.

Imagine fielding all those unsolicited calls and referring them to a professional whose full-time job involves learning your audience requirements and branding strategy, finding research or personally conducting ongoing market and competitor analysis, providing you with data-rich 'Point-of-View' (POV) assessments on how the possible media buys fit into your firm's priorities ' maintaining arm's-length but informed relationships with the myriad publications you might consider, but recommending only those publications that meet a sophisticated test of audience reach vs. cost. This professional then negotiates advantageous terms and specifics, such as date and page placement, and executes the details of the media plan, day-in and day-out. And who keeps the payments and discounts straight and sends you frequent updates for budget-tracking purposes.<br>That professional is a media planner/buyer. No stranger to corporate America, outside media planning and buying services are relatively new to law firm marketing, but their presence is increasing among the larger, more media-savvy firms. Just as the legal profession lagged in accepting and building marketing departments, it has been slow to appreciate the value of these media professionals. That's changing, however, as national and global law firms are recruiting more non-legal professionals to high-level positions; and that new blood is carrying over some well-known best practices found in other industries with longer track records in branding and advertising than law firm marketing.

Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.

Recent news reports have brought international attention to the dramatic risks associated with a worldwide outbreak of the avian H5N1 virus flu. Although the legal issues that may arise as a result of a pandemic are not all necessarily product liability issues, attorneys with a focus on product liability law are well advised to consider how such a pandemic might affect their clients and potential clients. It is also prudent for product liability attorneys to&#133;

To increase the effectiveness of our network of attorneys, efficiency and collective strength, and eliminate duplicative legal costs we needed to leverage the resources and intellectual capital of this national team of attorneys. Our solution was ultimately a two-pronged approach: First to provide counsel with technology to enable collaboration and sharing of resources in real time; and second, to gather the data to analyze the effectiveness and efficiencies of counsel and identify, encourage, and enforce best practice collaboration.

In 1789 and afterwards, when colonies became states, most state legislatures passed 'reception statutes.' These often forgotten parts of state law history 'received' the common law of England as of that date and, more importantly, empowered the courts to develop the common law in light of 'reason and experience.' <i>See</i> Victor E. Schwartz &amp; Leah Lorber, <i>Judicial Nullification of Civil Justice Reform Violates the Fundamental Federal Constitutional Principle of Separation of Powers: How to Restore the Right Balance</i>, 32 Rutgers L.J. (2001). Over the past 240 years, legislatures have retrieved the right to make law, including property law, commercial law, divorce law, and almost every other civil field. There is one vestige, however, where courts still make law ' the law of torts.

When a jury hears an argument, how do you know if they're getting it? They may start out conscientious and alert with good intentions about performing their civic duty, but that enthusiasm may dissipate throughout the trial and adversely affect the decision-making process. Like it or not, attention spans wane, boredom creeps in and life gets in the way all the while you're trying to win your case.

Consider this not unimaginable scenario: Opposing counsel calls for production of a confidential memorandum that details your impressions of the case and trial strategies. This is clearly protected as core work product, right? Not necessarily. In fact, if you shared the memo with your testifying expert in a federal court case, the answer is 'probably not.' Perhaps even more troubling is the following situation: On cross-examination, your expert is asked to reveal the content of confidential oral communications between you and your client to which he was privy in his capacity as a testifying expert. Once protected by the virtually impenetrable shroud of the attorney-client privilege, these types of communications also may now be discoverable if the testifying expert 'considered' the information in forming his opinions. <i>See</i> Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B).

Part One of this series discussed the rationales courts typically draw upon in deciding whether to apply a heeding presumption in failure-to-warn cases in general. This installment analyzes the application of the heeding presumption in pharmaceutical failure-to-warn cases specifically and explains why justifications for the presumption in the general product liability context do not necessarily hold true in the pharmaceutical failure-to-warn setting.