Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Accounting and Financial Planning for Law FirmsKickerFeaturesSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Movers & Shakers

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
January 30, 2012

Duane Morris LLP has announced new leadership positions in its Intellectual Property Practice Group. Louis Norwood “Woody” Jameson, the managing partner of the firm's Atlanta office and an IP litigator, will lead the firm's Intellectual Property Practice Group. Jameson succeeds Lewis Gould, Jr., who assumed the chairmanship of the group in 1999 and led it through more than a decade of expansion.

Effective immediately, Duane Morris has also formalized five divisions within its IP Practice. This new structure is reflective of the growth of the Duane Morris IP Practice across the offices of Duane Morris both domestically and internationally. Those divisions are patent prosecution; trademark and copyright; ANDA and generic pharmaceuticals; life sciences; and IP litigation. Each division will be co-chaired by two partners. In addition, and reflective of its continued plans to grow all of these divisions, the IP Practice Group will have a specially designated recruiting partner for the practice.

Duane Morris LLP has announced new leadership positions in its Intellectual Property Practice Group. Louis Norwood “Woody” Jameson, the managing partner of the firm's Atlanta office and an IP litigator, will lead the firm's Intellectual Property Practice Group. Jameson succeeds Lewis Gould, Jr., who assumed the chairmanship of the group in 1999 and led it through more than a decade of expansion.

Effective immediately, Duane Morris has also formalized five divisions within its IP Practice. This new structure is reflective of the growth of the Duane Morris IP Practice across the offices of Duane Morris both domestically and internationally. Those divisions are patent prosecution; trademark and copyright; ANDA and generic pharmaceuticals; life sciences; and IP litigation. Each division will be co-chaired by two partners. In addition, and reflective of its continued plans to grow all of these divisions, the IP Practice Group will have a specially designated recruiting partner for the practice.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?