Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Entrenched in patent law is the principle that a challenge against a patent for anticipation or obviousness must be based on 'prior art,' and not on disclosure in the patent itself. Also entrenched in patent law is the principle that an otherwise known product cannot be patented merely because one discovers new and unobvious properties possessed by that product.
The Federal Circuit wrestled with these two principles in
Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 64 USPQ2d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2002). According to the majority, the district court invalidated Elan's patent by relying not on the prior art but on Elan's specification itself, in violation of the first principle recited above. However, according to the dissent, the majority sustained patentability of an otherwise known product based on Elan's discovery of new and unobvious properties of that product, in violation of the second principle recited above. In its upcoming en banc review, the Federal Circuit should reconcile this apparent doctrinal conflict.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.