The Supreme Court's decision in <i>Festo</i> has been hailed by many as being one of the most significant cases to impact the patent system. <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoektsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.</i>, 122 S.Ct. 1831 (2002). Some say that more significant than <i>Festo</i> is <i>Johnson</i>, in which the Federal Circuit held that subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a patent cannot be covered by the doctrine of equivalents. See <i>Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co.</i>, 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (<i>en banc</i>).
Over the years, I have worked with many in-house counsel as their outside litigation counsel. These experiences serve as the basis for this article, which discusses some of the things that in-house counsel can do with respect to their outside counsel to improve their company's chances of prevailing in patent litigation.
Generally, patent attorneys and patent agents are aware that under its regulations, the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) allows certain parties, such as small businesses (referred to generally as "small entities"), to pay reduced fees. This can be a big benefit to small businesses and individual inventors, many of whom have only limited funds with which to prosecute a patent. Most attorneys and agents evaluate a client for small entity status based on the "500 employee rule" — if the client has fewer than 500 employees, they are a small entity. This rule serves well for a quick "ball park" determination and the elimination of large clients from eligibility, however determining whether a party truly qualifies as a small entity is more complicated. For example, in certain circumstances, a company that qualifies as a small business under the Small Business Administration's (SBA) guidelines might not necessarily qualify as a small entity for the purpose of paying reduced USPTO fees. Improperly claiming small entity status can open the patent to attack during litigation, and the cost of defending against such a claim can easily exceed the savings on government fees.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.
At the Oscars in March, Best Actress winner Frances McDormand made “inclusion rider” go viral. But Kalpana Kotagal, a partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll had already worked for months to write the language for such provisions. Kotagal was developing legal language for contract provisions that Hollywood's elite could use to require studios and other partners to employ diverse workers on set.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
While the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.
Insiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.
