Search

The term "nanotechnology" generally refers to the fabrication and manipulation of materials and devices on the scale of about 1-100 nanometers, and has become one of the key technology buzzwords for 2004. The passage of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Pub. L. No. 108-153, which authorized $3.7 billion in federal funding from 2005 through 2008 for the support of nanotechnology research and development, has fueled the fervor over nanotechnology. This substantial funding came as the scientific community and industries as diverse as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and petrochemicals were increasingly discovering that, when reduced to nanoscale size, ordinary bits of matter often manifest radically different physical properties. <i>See</i> Joseph Brean, <i>The Next Big (Little) Thing,</i> National Post (Feb. 6, 2004).

If you asked 100 patent attorneys walking down the street, "What is the PCT for?", the vast majority would answer that the PCT is used to file a U.S. patent application under the Paris Convention to reserve patent rights in many other countries. A minority of them might reply (particularly if they were on a street in New York or Washington), that the PCT is the way their foreign clients bring their own applications into the United States. But very few would answer, "to control the timing and location of my search and the timing and location of my examination for my U.S. patent application."

The Treasury Department announced on June 18 that it will extend the "make available" provisions of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) through 2005, the third year of the federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Program.

In one of the nation's first and most comprehensive allocation choice-of-law decisions, a court recently rejected insurers' claims that allocation law of the forum applies to property damage arising at multiple environmental sites if the policyholder's coverage action is venued in New Jersey. The decision was rendered in four companion environmental coverage cases involving a common choice-of-law issue. <i>See General Electric Co., as successor in interest to RCA Corp. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London,</i> Docket No. MER-L-4931-87 c/w MER-L-6432-88 (Law Div. Mar. 25, 2004), <i>reconsid. den.,</i> (Law Div. May 12, 2004) (hereinafter "<i>RCA</i>"); <i>Home Ins. Co. v. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics, Inc.,</i> Docket No. MER- L-5192-96 c/w MER-L-2773-02 (Law Div. Mar. 25, 2004), <i>reconsid. den.,</i> (Law Div. May 12, 2004); <i>Sterling Winthrop, Inc. v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co.</i>, Docket No. MER-L-101-94 c/w MER-L-106-94 (Law Div. Mar. 25, 2004); <i>Rohm &amp; Haas Co. v. Allianz Underwriters, Inc.,</i> Docket No. MER-L-4920-87 c/w MER-L-4664-95 (collectively, the "<i>Companion Cases</i>"). The court concluded that the law of the state in which each waste site is located presumptively applies to the allocation of damages. This decision, now the subject of pending appeals, is likely to reach New Jersey's Supreme Court because it was rendered in "high stakes" cases, and it has broad application to many other environmental coverage actions. If the Supreme Court ultimately takes up the matter ' something the court has demonstrated a willingness to do in connection with other challenging coverage issues (<i>see, eg, Spaulding Composites Co. v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.,</i> 176 N.J. 25, 819 A.2d 410 (2003) (granting leave for interlocutory appeal regarding inapplicability of non-cumulation clause); <i>Pfizer, Inc. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau,</i> 154 N.J. 187, 721 A.2d 634 (1998) (granting leave for interlocutory appeal regarding choice-of-law governing interpretation of pollution exclusion); <i>Carter-Wallace v. Admiral Ins. Co.,</i> 154 N.J. 312, 712 A.2d 1116 (1998) (granting interlocutory appeal regarding allocation) ' it will be the highest state court in the nation to resolve an allocation choice-of-law dispute in a multistate, multisite environmental coverage action.

In the last several years, a number of insurance companies including Chubb, AIG, InsureTrust (through Lloyd's of London), Venture Programs, Intellectual Property Risk Management ("IPRM"), and Litigation Risk Management, Inc. ("LRM") have begun offering insurance that pays costs associated with infringement of patents only, or infringement of some combination or all of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For purposes of this article we will refer to these polices covering intellectual property as "IP infringement policies." IP infringement policies vary by carrier and property covered. The following descriptions are necessarily general.

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.