Search

Is the landlord's right to cure a defect in the premises a perpetual one? The answer depends on where you are, what your lease says, and whether you have documented complaints and repairs adequately.

The patent applicant can act pre-emptively, even pending further development of legal doctrines specific to infringement of business and network-related methods, to draft and prosecute claims that will "catch" infringing activity at as many conceivable loci along the network as possible, and thwart competitors' ability to readily avoid infringement by parsing method steps creatively.

It has long been held that a good faith reliance on timely and competent advice of counsel can negate a charge of willful patent infringement. Such advice of counsel can be used to potentially shield an infringer from having to pay enhanced damages of up to three times the damages under 35 U.S.C. &sect;284 and/or the patentee's attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. &sect;285. Similarly, a defendant's failure to obtain advice of counsel until after the company commenced its infringing activities would be evidence of willful infringement. <i>Underwater Devices Incorporated v. Morrison-Knudsen Company,</i> 717 F.2d 1380, 1390 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The practical application of this rule has been fraught with difficulty, however, since assertion of an opinion of counsel as a defense to a charge of willfulness typically involves a waiver of attorney-client privilege as to communications surrounding the opinion. The tension created by this dynamic was exacerbated by an adverse inference that an opinion of counsel was unfavorable if an accused infringer refused to waive privilege and disclose an opinion of counsel in defense of a willfulness charge. <i>Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc.,</i> 793 F.2d 1565, 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in <i>Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v. Dana Corp.,</i> 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 19185 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (<i>en banc</i>) abolished the adverse inference rule, but also reaffirmed that one is under a duty of care to avoid infringement.

One year ago, newspaper headlines in publications such as <i>The Wall Street Journal</i> and <i>The New York Times</i> sounded the alarm that litigation involving injury or disease attributed to silica could be the "Next Asbestos." (Jonathan D. Glater, <i>Suits on Silica Being Compared to Asbestos Cases,</i> N.Y. Times, Sept. 6, 2003 at C1; Susan Warren, <i>Silicosis Suits Rise Like Dust,</i> Wall St. J., Sept. 4, 2003.) Since then, many legal and insurance industry commentators have tracked the growing number of silica claims. At the same time, the business and investment communities have taken a closer look to determine whether silica liabilities will present financial risk profiles similar to that experienced in the asbestos mass tort arena.

Forecasting mass tort claims is often based on sophisticated models applied to large, complicated databases. These models can account for such causal factors as the size of the exposed population, the dose-response rates between defendant's product and disease, and actuarial mortality rates of the exposed population. Too often, though, there is one variable that is simply extrapolated into the future at historical levels with no attempt to understand its causal influences &mdash; the filing rate (also called the propensity to sue).

It is becoming almost impossible to stay on top of all the significant developments affecting mass torts, class actions and environmental injury cases. Every week the combination of multiple court decisions, settlements, verdicts and government action affect the complexion of this constantly changing practice. The following summary, synthesized from multiple sources that include published court decisions, newspapers, government publications, journals and reports from lawyers across the country, highlights some of the most important events affecting mass torts during the last 6 months.

Many insureds face claims of antitrust violations, anticompetitive conduct, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets. Too often these businesses fail to consider that they may have a very valuable asset to protect them against the expense, and any settlements or judgments, incurred in such lawsuits ' their comprehensive or commercial general liability ("CGL") insurance policies.

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

Of the many hats worn by leasing attorneys, one is of the bankruptcy practitioner. It is a skill set that usually comes into play at the end of a transaction gone bad. This two-part series outlines the case for ending this practice and having bankruptcy counsel get involved in lease deals from the outset.

&#133;