Standing to Assert a U.S. Patent: Do Infringement Actions Belong Solely to the 'Patentee'?
May 01, 2003
Who can sue on a U.S. patent? The answer is not always as clear-cut as one may think. A patent plaintiff or other party seeking to enforce rights in a U.S. patent portfolio will thus wish to ensure before commencing any such action that he enjoys sufficient legal standing with respect to the patents in his portfolio. Otherwise, a challenge to the plaintiff's legal standing may lead to unexpected chagrin for the would-be asserter of the patent and unlooked-for advantage on the part of the alleged infringer against whom the patent was to be asserted.
In the Spotlight
May 01, 2003
On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
Why Grokster Stands Where Napster Fell
May 01, 2003
In a landmark decision issued on April 25, 2003, a federal district judge in Los Angeles rejected claims that two leading decentralized, peer-to-peer (P2P) networks were liable for copyright infringement. The court quashed the request of motion picture and recording industry associations, professional songwriters and music publishers to shut down the Grokster and StreamCast Networks, two companies that distribute free, P2P software allegedly used for the exchange of copyrighted music, movies and other digital media over the Internet.
Do the SEC's Proposed Standards of Professional Conduct Apply to You?
May 01, 2003
When The Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) or Department of Labor (DOL) or FBI Special Agent investigator knocks on a defense counsel's office door to conduct an interview relating to her client's alleged violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the Act), she might recall skimming an article and concluding that it did not apply to her role as defense counsel in product liability cases. She should think again. In light of the recent financial debacles, including Enron and World Com, the SEC is fulfilling the Congressional mandate to require public companies to disclose and remediate material violations, breaches of fiduciary duties, and similar violations of the SEC regulations. This article discusses the SEC's definition of an "attorney" under 17 CFR Part 205 and its newly proposed alternative to an earlier draft "noisy withdrawal" ethics rule, attorney withdrawal and disaffirmance with client notification to the SEC of withdrawal. The following scenarios demonstrate when and how an attorney may have to respond under the Act.
Case Notes
May 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
Online
May 01, 2003
As the article infra, page 1, discusses, attorneys who practice product liability law are not beyond the reach of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. For a complete description of the SEC's proposed rules regarding the standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing before the SEC, go to <i>www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/31-8186</i>. The site summarizes the rules proposed pursuant to Section 307 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which requires the SEC (Commission) to prescribe minimum standards of professional conduct for attorneys appearing and practicing before the Commission in any way in the representation of issuers.
Practice Tip: 30 Days Before Trial — Testing Your Expert's Knowledge
May 01, 2003
In the March 2003 Practice Tip, I discussed two of those individuals with whom the trial lawyer should meet within the 30 days prior to trial: the client and the physician. This month's tip discusses meeting with the engineer. For ease of reference, all individuals are deemed male. For purposes of the discussion, the case concerns injury caused by a defective machine. When the lawyer prepares the engineering expert, the plaintiff should be present. There are several issues about which he must be prepared to testify:
Tackling the 'Runaway Job-eating Blob': The ABA Calls on Congress to Rein in Asbestos Claims
May 01, 2003
<b>The Crisis</b> The following phrases have been used recently to define the current state of asbestos litigation in the United States — a "pit," an "endless saga," a "runaway job-eating blob," an "elephantine mass." For those who practice in this litigation, the phrases ring true. The "crisis," by which it has accurately become known, is multi-faceted. Dockets are clogged; the vast majority of claims are brought by unimpaired individuals who prematurely sue to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations; claims are brought against new "target" defendants that never manufactured asbestos-containing products; claims are forum-shopped to plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions where the claimants never lived or worked to maximize damage verdicts; and plaintiffs are consolidated with thousands of other claimants whose lawsuits are wholly unrelated in respect to occupation, method of exposure, or disease. These tactics create an unwieldy mass that often puts defendants in the untenable position of having to pay to buy their peace, even where there has been no discovery. Enough said. The system has run amuck.
Understanding the Distinct Purpose and Meaning of First-Party Insurance
May 01, 2003
Like all contracts, insurance agreements are drafted and entered into in order to carry forward the intentions of the parties. Because parties negotiate first-party property insurance to protect interests that differ fundamentally from those covered by third-party liability insurance, third-party precedent is of limited — if any — relevance and utility in interpreting first-party insurance agreements.
