Selecting New Partners
Over the past year and a half, the recession has sparked a dramatic rise in lateral partner moves as law firms have tried to expand active practice areas and partners have sought safety in ever-larger firms.
Use of Debit and Credit Cards by Cafeteria Plans Approved
The Internal Revenue Service has ruled for the first time that properly substantiated employer-provided medical expense reimbursements made through debit or credit cards under a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) or health care flexible spending account (HCFSA) are excludable from gross income under Section 105(b) (Rev. Rul. 2003-43). The use of debit or credit cards by HRAs and HCFSAs will greatly streamline the reimbursement process and will eliminate employees' out of pocket expenses at the point of service - making these programs much more appealing to employees.
Is Your Process Patent Being Circumvented? Housey Forces Another Look at Section 271 Protections for Information-Producing Patented Processes
Patents containing process claims, especially those where the result of the process is information, such as some research method, business method or software, Internet or telephone-based process patents, may be among the most valuable elements of a portfolio. If used defensively, such patents may provide a competitive advantage to the owner or prevent competitors from entering into a key line of business. If used offensively, these patents offer licensing opportunities on transactions that may occur millions of times per year. Potential licensees that wish to practice the patented processes described above, however, may choose a course other than licensing — practicing the process abroad and sending the resulting information back into the United States. The recent case of <i>Bayer AG v. Housey Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,</i> No. 02-1598, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2003), construing 35 U.S.C. '271(g), may make it more difficult to enforce these process patents with respect to such outsourcing and importing activities.
Practicing Before the Court of Federal Claims
As the single largest user of cutting-edge technology in the world, the United States, with its powers of eminent domain, is one of the world's largest infringing entities. While the U.S. government frequently uses patented technology without first obtaining a license, many patent owners are reluctant to bring suit against the government for infringement. One apparent reason for this recalcitrance is that many patent owners are unfamiliar with the court in which such actions must be brought: the Court of Federal Claims. Because bringing suit for patent infringement in the Court of Federal Claims differs from practicing in federal district court, there are several factors of which patent owners should be aware in order to successfully prosecute claims in this court.
News from the FDA
The latest information for use in your practice, including rulings, draft guidances, seminars, and more.
HIPAA and State Discovery Practices
<b><i>Conducting Ex Parte Interviews with Plaintiff's Health Care Providers</i></b> The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a complex commercial statutory scheme aimed at regulating the health care industry's use and storage of electronic health information. In drafting this legislation, Congress expressed concern that health care entities must assure their "customers," including patients, "that the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of electronic protected health information they collect, maintain, use, or transmit is protected." 68 Fed. Reg. 8334 (Feb. 20, 2003). HIPAA (Pub. L. No. 104-191) is codified in myriad sections of 18, 26, 29, and 42 of the United States Code. Using the Public Law Number cite and referring to the most recent edition of the United States Code Annotated Tables periodical will permit the reader to pinpoint these scattered United States Code sections.
The FDA's Role in Product Liability Litigation
Aside from promulgating regulations, imposing rigorous standards on myriad product manufacturers, and conducting research and studies on all such products, the FDA also takes an active role in participating in an array of product liability litigations both on the state and federal levels. Often, the FDA's position and "expertise" on an issue carry great weight with the courts and consequently can affect the outcome of litigation. Thus, defense counsel involved in product liability matters in which the FDA historically has had an interest should keep abreast of the FDA's positions on the relevant issues.
Will Reinsurers Still 'Follow-the- Settlements'?
In the insurance arena, allocations of claims amounts are frequently the subject of litigation among policyholders and insurers. Courts seek to fashion allocation formulas based upon a number of factors including policy language, legal principles and equitable considerations. In the reinsurance context, allocation questions are generally resolved in arbitration. A number of courts, however, have recently addressed the allocation of claims settlements in the reinsurance context. The issue in reinsurance is whether the reinsurer is bound by the cedents' allocation of a loss or settlement amount to the cedents' policies at issue in the underlying claim. Reinsurers are generally bound to "follow-the-fortunes" or "follow-the-settlements" of a cedent provided the cedent has acted reasonably and in good faith and in accordance with the terms of the reinsurance contracts. <i>Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Home Ins. Co.,</i> 882 F. Supp. 1328, 1346 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). This article surveys recent case law that has addressed the question of whether the "follow-the-settlements" or "follow-the-fortunes" doctrine applies to allocation of claims payments or settlements to reinsured policies.
