Analysis of recent cases that affect your practice.

Features

Your client Jane Doe, the distraught business executive who hopes you can assist her in avoiding a criminal tax prosecution arising from her offshore bank accounts, calls you to inquire about the status of her case.

Features

You are a public figure whose ability to earn a living depends upon your reputation for integrity and talent. Almost without warning, you become caught up in a highly publicized business scandal that threatens your livelihood and public image. The media's fascination with the details of the scandal has caused a public furor and led federal officials to open parallel criminal and civil investigations. You hear rumors that a Congressional committee is about to hold public hearings. You need help - and fast.

Last month, we discussed how brightly the spotlight is shining on ethics and compliance programs. We explained that Sarbanes-Oxley has a provision that provides Federal protection for employees of SEC registrants who report wrongdoing to the government and/or law enforcement. The Act has created a situation in which anyone who reports wrongdoing to the government and/or law enforcement is protected from employer retaliation under Federal Statute. And we urged that companies assess the effectiveness of their ethics and compliance efforts.

Features

In a decision interpreting for the first time certain provisions in the Bankruptcy Code, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that royalty payments belonged to the estate of the bankrupt debtor/licensor rather than to the new owner by assignment of the underlying intellectual property covered by the licenses. <i>In re CellNet Data Systems, Inc.,</i> 327 F.3d 242 (3d Cir. 2003). The Third Circuit held that the debtor/licensor was permitted to sever the right to receive the remaining royalty payments due on the license from the transfer of the underlying intellectual property rights.

Features

Unknowing building owners can incur substantial liability when incorporating certain artistic works within their buildings. The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA), 17 U.S.C. 106A, limits the ability of a building owner to alter, move, or remove a "work of visual art." This article will provide an overview of this statute and its interpretation and application by various courts.

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.

Features

On June 6, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit seemingly breathed new life into research tool patents when it held that the use of patented peptides for drug discovery was not exempt from infringement under the "safe harbor" provision of 35 U.S.C. '271(e)(1). <i>Integra Lifesciences, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA,</i> 331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In an earlier case, <i>Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc.,</i> No. 95 Civ. 8833, 2001 WL 1512597 (S.D.N.Y 2001), a district court had ruled that the use of patented intermediates for drug screening was non-infringing, thereby implicating that the use of other research tool patents for drug discovery was likewise sheltered from infringement liability under '271(e)(1).