Week of June 11, 2012 on ILNToday - A Roundup

Wow, another week has passed already, and it's time for a roundup! It's also time to wish my beautiful niece a happy first birthday, so while you're all enjoying this wonderful content from our attorneys, I'll be enjoying a slice of cake!

  • NSW Government defers abolition of duties from Gadens Lawyers: Gadens' Jon Denovan and Cameron Steele talk duty measures for New South Wales in this latest piece from Gadens Lawyers. 
     
  • Lawyers' Use Of Internet To Influence Jurors from Epstein Becker & Green: EBG's Bill Ruskin talks about how lawyers' use of the internet can prejudice jurors, getting into the ethics that bind attorneys and recommending that trial counsel do their due diligence to prevent prejudicial information reaching jurors. 
     
  • A Big Red Bus – Copyright from Fogler Rubinoff: Colleen Spring Zimmerman delves into a recent decision by the English Patents Courts regarding copyright infringement of photographs of famous sites in London. This is a must read. 
     
  • WHAT IS COPYRIGHT ALL ABOUT? from Halsbury Chambers: A. Knowles-Rahming discusses copyright in the Bahamas, which is governed by the Copyright Act of 1998. 

Happy reading!

 

Week of April 30, 2012 on ILNToday - A Roundup

This week has just sped by! We're getting ready for next week's IP Group luncheon during INTA, and excited for the ILN's 24th Annual Meeting the following week in Washington, DC! 

So without further ado, here are this week's Top Five! 

 

  • Source Code Escrow When Entering into a Software License Agreement--Is it Necessary? from Epstein Becker & Green: EBG's Hylan Fenster talks about source code escrow agreements for software licenses..
     
  • Due Diligence for Complex IP and IT Transactions from Fogler Rubinoff: Colleen Spring Zimmerman, who will also be attending next week's IP lunch in Washington, talks about due diligence in general, then focuses in on how and why IP due diligence is so critical.
     
  • Ohio Statehouse: Week in review from McDonald Hopkins: McDonald Hopkins Government Relations Practice Group reviews the top four subjects of the week that readers should know about, from Mid-Biennium Review bills and comprehensive energy legislation to new house members chosen and legislation approved this week.

Happy reading!

 

Week of April 23, 2012 on ILNToday - A Roundup

When did it get to be the end of April already? This year is flying by! 

So without further ado, here are the most popular articles from ILNToday for this week! 

  • Official Marks in Canada – Foreign public authorities need not apply from Clark Wilson: Karen Monteith discusses the Federal Court of Canada recent ruling in favor of Maple Leaf Foods Inc. in an appeal of the decision of the Registrar of Trade-marks.
     
  • Pitfalls In Proving CERCLA Divisibility Of Harm from Epstein Becker & Green: Bill Ruskin delves into the Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. case, and a judge's recent ruling that PRP Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. failed to prove that contamination at a CERCLA site was divisible and, as a result, will be subject to CERCLA 107 joint and several liability at an upcoming September 2012 bench trial. 

 

 

Week of February 13, 2012 on ILNToday - Roundup!

Without further ado, some of this week's top content from ILNToday: 

 

Week of February 6, 2012 on ILN Today - Roundup!

Happy Friday all! It's been a very busy week here at the ILN, which makes me feel as though this is a well-deserved weekend ahead. On to the roundup - because it's been so busy this week, I'm going with a top 5! 

  • You better get your 401(k) assets moving from McDonald Hopkins: McDonald Hopkins' John Wirtshafter discusses the issue of employer contributions to 401(k) plans, identifying what the Department of Labor sees as a reasonable amount of time to make these contributions and what companies should do to make sure they're complying. 
     
  • IRS UPDATES GUIDANCE FOR W-2 REPORTING OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH COVERAGE from Davis & Gilbert: D&G's bottom line on this sums it up best: "W-2s issued in 2013 for the 2012 tax year will need to reflect the cost of employer-sponsored group health coverage. Employers should immediately begin determining which of their group health coverages (including EAPs, wellness programs, and hospital and fixed indemnity plans) must be reported in accordance with the updated guidance."  See the full article for additional details. 
     
  • IRAN SANCTIONS: CAN INDIA WALK THE TALK? from LexCounsel: LexCounsel offers an interesting perspective on sanctions against Iran, detailing China's bilateral trade with Iran, as well as India's need to include them in their consumption of imported oil. 
     
  • Off to the Marché We Go! – Not Descriptive and Not Confusing from Clark Wilson: Clark Wilson's Larry Munn discusses the Federal Court's recent ruling in Movenpick Holding AG v. Exxon Mobil Corporation and Attorney General of Canada over the trademark "Marche Express." 
     
  • Excluding Chemical Risk Assessment Evidence From the Courtroom from Epstein Becker & Green: EBG's Bill Ruskin examines the potential use of chemical risk assessments in the courtroom, noting that since regulators base their assessments on a different set of criteria, which differ widely from the burden of proof required in court, these assessments are not legally relevant and should be excluded. 

Happy reading!

Week of January 30, 2012 on ILN Today - Roundup!

Once again, we're at the end of another week and here for a content roundup! So without further ado...

  • PETERKA & PARTNERS Newsletter: Our colleagues in the Czech Republic bring us the latest news on the amendments to the Commercial and Labor Code, to the Act on Transformation of Companies and Cooperatives, to the Code of Administrative Justice, and to the Employment Act, along with new legislation on corporate criminal liability and increased fees for entries in the Land Register.
     
  • ILN Social Media Roundtable: This isn't legal content, but it comes straight from the marketers at ILN member firms - if you're wondering what the mid-sized firms in our Network are doing with social media, some of their challenges and triumphs, this is worth a read. 
     
  • Not only is it reasonable but it is now obligatory: dilapidations from Fladgate LLP: Alison Mould of Fladgate discusses the courts recent adoption of the pre-action protocol for terminal schedules of dilapidation, thanks to ten years of efforts by the Property Litigation Association.

 

Happy Friday!

 

Week of January 23, 2012 on ILN Today - Roundup!

It's time for another roundup here on a rainy Friday morning in New Jersey! 

Once again we're seeing some excellent content coming out of our member firms from around the world - I highly recommend checking out these articles and blog posts. I'm switching over entirely to a top 10 each week, so without further ado, here's your roundup for this week!

  • Digital IP and the Supreme Court of Canada Crookes v. Newton from Fogler Rubinoff: In this article, IP expert, Colleen Spring Zimmerman examines the sticky issue of hyperlinks with respect to libel in the case of Crookes v Newton, and the potential ramifications for copyright issues. 
     
  • Trends 2012: Employment tribunals from Fladgate LLP: Lou Marshall of Fladgate LLP discusses an employment tribunal's recent award to Dr. Eva Michalak, the measures being implemented by the government in April as part of a tribunal review, and things to be aware of.

 

  • NLRB Increases Scrutiny of Employer Restrictions on Employee Social Media Usage from Epstein Becker & Green: Ana Salper looks at the NLRB's second report, which describes cases reviewed by the office of its acting General Counsel. She identifies the two main points that the report underscores for employers, as well as the line between which employee communications via social media are protected, and which are not. 
     
  • Beware potential liabilities of multiemployer pension plans from McDonald Hopkins: McDonald Hopkins' John M. Wirtshafter discusses the potential liabilities of multiemployer pension plans, and what employers can do to protect their companies.
     
  • Putting The Accent On .CA Domains from Clark Wilson: Clark Wilson discusses the Canadian Internet Registration Authority's recent report on the results of their consultation on the proposed implementation of .CA domains with French characters. 
     
  • PPS ready or PPS worried? from Gadens Lawyers: Jon Denovan discusses Australia's new Personal Property Security regime, which comes into force on January 30, 2012. He details what types of companies will be affected, what is required, and how important the new legislation will be. 
     
  • Business Outlook Survey from McDonald Hopkins: Carl Grassi shares the results of the firm's 2012 business outlook survey, with the headline that "Modest improvements in business conditions expected in 2012 despite growing frustrations with Congress." The ten-question survey is emailed to the firm's clients during the first weeks of the year, and offers some fascinating insights. 
     
  • A Closer Look At Environmental Regulations & Health Care Facilities from Epstein Becker & Green: Sheila Woolson guests posts at the Toxic Tort Litigation Blog, where she "analyzes the potential CERLCA liability of medical facilities for the disposal of non-medical solid waste and makes practical recommendations concerning how medical facilites can limit their CERCLA exposure."
     
  • STAMP DUTY AND ITS EFFECT ON TRANSACTIONS from Halsbury Chambers: Halsbury Chambers' Colin Thompson discusses the stamp duty in the Bahamas, its effects on land and business transactions, which transactions are subject, and exemptions.
     
  • NLRB forces employers to review arbitration agreements from McDonald Hopkins: Brendan Fitzgerald authors another post on the NLRB, who have turned their attention to employer-employee arbitration agreements. 

Happy reading, and happy Friday!

 

Week of January 9, 2012 on ILNToday - A Roundup

It has been one busy week on ILNToday, with some excellent contributions from our members around the world! My top five posts for this week are: 

It was difficult to choose only five posts this week, so I highly recommend that you take a look at ilntoday.com to see what else might be of interest to you  - our attorneys have authored content on everything from employment law, to intellectual property to health law, and more! 

Actual Knowledge Necessary for Inducement, Mr. Norman Zivin, Cooper & Dunham

We kicked off the Saturday morning session with a presentation from Mr. Norman Zivin of one of the ILN's member firms in New York, Cooper & Dunham, who reported on their recent involvement in a Supreme Court case and the implications for ILN member firms, both in the US and abroad.

Norman said that the case involved a deep fryer, a product made by their client, SEB, a French company in Lyon.  A number of years ago, they brought a lawsuit against a company in Hong Kong for infringement of the patent.  The opposing side defended on the grounds that they couldn't have infringed the patent because the products were made and sold in China. They said that therefore, they don't do any business in the United States and couldn't have induced anyone to infringe, because they didn't even know that SEB had a patent.

The case was tried three or four years ago, before a jury. Norman commented that the reason that a lot of foreign companies bring cases to the US is that juries in the US tend to grant much higher damages than one would get in a case in Europe or Asia.  The jury took about 15 minutes to deliberate and came back with a judgement of $5 million in favor of their client. The case went up on appeal, and the decision was affirmed, so everyone thought the case was over.

However, the defendant then asked the Supreme Court to hear the case. Norman said that this is a real long shot in the US, as there are about 10,000 petitions filed every year for the Supreme Court to hear cases, and they generally hear about 100.  So there's  1% chance that the Supreme Court would even hear the case. For patent cases, the Supreme Court may take one or two a year, but that's it.  

But in this case, the Supreme Court decided they would hear the case.  Norman said that this is normally an "uh oh," and that everyone said that if the Supreme Court was going to hear the case, they would throw out the judgement. The case was argued in February, and they received the decision last week - the Supreme Court affirmed the decision in their favor, which was the first time in 47 years that the Supreme Court has interpreted what constitutes patent infringement. Norman said it was a good victory for their client. 

Rather than discuss the finer points of patent law, Norman said he wanted to make two interesting points to the delegates: 

  1. You can't hide from US law.  For firms with clients in Europe and Asia, if they think they're immune to US law because they're making things in foreign countries, they're not.  The US has a very broad reach, and if a company sells anything in the US or if the goods end up in the US, firms had better advise their clients to take US intellectual property rights into account.
     
  2. Norman's second point was a procedural one - most patent lawyers in the US will never have the opportunity to try a case before the Supreme Court, so they're not always familiar with the procedures.  For one thing, there is a third party involved - the US government, who is represented by the Solicitor General.  The Solicitor General may or may not decide to support one of the parties, or he may take some other position. In civil cases, such as this one, both parties are invited to Washington, DC to make a presentation to the Solicitor General to try to convince him that he should write a brief to support their side.

    Both sides went to Washington and made their presentation, and Norman heard rumors that the Solicitor General was going to submit a brief on their behalf.  They would have been pleased had he done so, but no brief was forthcoming. 

    The week after their arguments in February, there was an article in a trade publication that reported on a meeting held at the White House, with representatives of Microsoft, Intel and a few other large companies, along with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.  These companies were trying to convince the Solicitor General not to file any brief, and the Solicitor General was apparently ordered not to do so.  

    Norman said that these kinds of political considerations were not within his realm of experience, and he's sure that many of the other attorneys in the room wouldn't have expected this either, unless they're in the political realm.  He added that they have to be cognizant not only of the legal position and facts for their cases, but also the political ramifications, which are normally beyond the scope of what they do as advocates on behalf of their clients. 

ILN IP Luncheon - It's All About Relationships

Today, we held our annual luncheon at the INTA conference for ILN members. I always enjoy this lunch because I get to meet and reconnect with attorneys who are not necessarily attendees of our Regional and Annual Meetings.

We had a wonderful lunch again today at One Market Restaurant here in San Francisco, with great company and conversations.  The attorneys also agreed, some of them saying that they so appreciated something more intimate than some of the huge parties that take place at INTA.  They said that it's not easy to get to know people when you just smile at them and exchange business cards, but don't have an actual conversation.  

With so many attorneys attending this conference (I've heard it's over 8,000, and that's not including those who are in town just to network who didn't register to attend the conference), it's easy to get lost in the shuffle.  So it was great to take a breather, spend a few hours together talking and connecting and renewing and establishing relationships.