Often, a change in political administrations produces a change in interpretation of the anti-trust laws. Liberals see every act of large corporations as detrimental to the interests of the “working man” (what do politicians know about “working”) and, hence, seek to utilize an expansive enforcement of the anti-trust laws to control the corporations. Conservatives, not being so paranoid, favor a more limited application of the anti-trust laws.
The economy must be in really bad shape, as it appears we have reached a point where the lawyers are reduced to suing each other (Waggoner v. Chadbourne & Parke). In this case, a California attorney sued a New York law firm, in California, on behalf of a Texas client.
As unlikely as it may seem, some misguided individuals actually hold lawyers in low esteem. Indeed, they exhibit a great deal of unreasoned antipathy towards lawyers. So, in keeping with our goal of trying to attract as many readers as possible – however ridiculous their beliefs – we report on the case of Ecast Inc. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, wherein the defendants are lawyers.
by Alexander Poltorak - Mr. Grove was recently quoted in the article by Jonathan Thaw and Susan Decker, “Grove Says Patent System May Have Same Flaws as Derivatives” (Bloomberg.com, May 4 2009). With all due respect to Mr. Grove, he simply doesn’t understand the meaning of, and the underlying motivation for, patents.
As a refreshing change of topic, let’s turn our attention to trademarks. The T.T.A.B. (the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board – the Trademark Office internal appellate body) recently addressed a “question of first impression” (sounds impressive, doesn’t it?), namely whether fraud as to one class of a multiple class registration subjects the entire registration subject to cancellation. G&W Laboratories, Inc. v. GW Pharma Limited
The costs of IP litigation are astronomical – and rising. Ever the spin doctors, some law firms see this as an opportunity. They emphasize the conventional ways in which IP litigants can seek to control costs:
(1) find attorneys with lower hourly billing rates;
(2) keep legal teams small to minimize (billable) time devoted to intra-team communications;
A previous blog entry – which will not be repeated here – dealt with the strange case of Cornell University v. Hewlett Packard Co., wherein the plaintiff, despite warnings by the trial judge that their damages model was defective, initially sought damages of $575M. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages of $184M. The judge reduced the award to $53M.
Recently, the USPTO rejected claims in a pending patent application directed to the cDNA encoding the human natural killer cell activation inducing ligand (NAIL) protein. The patent examiner took the position that the claimed invention was obvious because the protein was known in the prior art and there were also known, reliable methods for identifying the gene sequence that codes for NAIL.