Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
What's happening in this all-important area.
Features
The authority to concede liability derives from a defendant's inherent right not to contest claims made by a plaintiff. There has been a general reluctance to concede liability on the part of the defense bar, based as much on the inability to recognize what is to be gained by such an approach as on an unrealistic fear of what may be lost. However, conceding liability can provide a valuable opportunity to enhance one's credibility, as well as a vehicle to provide damage and expense control. In the appropriate case, conceding liability can be a particularly effective strategy, which tends to be underused. What are the risks and benefits of conceding liability? In which cases is it appropriate to employ the strategy? We address herein some of the practical aspects.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in March began reconsideration of its decision that held it was unconstitutional for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withhold experimental drugs from terminally ill patients. The order for rehearing en banc was issued in November 2006. The case pits dying, often desperate, patients against the FDA and its policies aimed at protecting the public from dangerous and unproven medications.
Features
Physicians and policymakers have long decried the risk of malpractice liability as the greatest obstacle to volunteerism in health care. Over time, lawmakers across the country have responded to these concerns, and today there is an array of federal and state laws that protect volunteer health care providers from lawsuits arising from the provision of charitable medical care. Prudent defense counsel should be aware of the laws that exist to protect volunteer health care providers, and should know just when those laws apply. What federal and state statutes immunize providers of charitable health care, and how can those statutes operate to protect defendants in medical malpractice actions?
This month marks the beginning of a new feature in which <i>Patent Strategy & Management</i> expands its coverage to provide information about the advancement of lawyers in the patent profession.
Part One of this series discussed reasonable royalty damages and the questions that a prospective litigant can ask to evaluate its litigation exposure. This month's installment continues the discussion of those questions.
In patent infringement cases, defining the scope of the real injury to the patentee poses a challenge when the patent only covers a portion of a product or system. Courts have developed the entire market value and convoyed sales rules in an attempt to address the true economic loss to the patentee caused when the patented invention is part of a more complex product or of a larger system of goods sold together. These doctrines have been criticized for a number of years and are the targets of legislative activity.
Features
Since 1842, U.S. law has required patent owners to provide notice of their patent rights to the public by marking patented articles. The current statute, codified at 35 U.S.C. '287(a), provides that a failure to mark bars a patentee from obtaining damages for the period before it provided a defendant in a patent infringement action with actual notice of its infringement allegations. This can have a significant financial impact, as up to six years of potential damages may be lost.
In a nutshell, the value of a firm or business is equal to not only the inherent value of its IP but also the value added from the successful branding of a company's intangible assets. This article presents four key steps, with a focus on patents and trademarks, toward adding an IP branding strategy to an existing business model.