Hiring a New Employee: How to Protect Yourself
May 05, 2004
Avoiding litigation risks involves focus. One of the key areas of focus should be on hiring; more specifically, the application process. Over time, employers have found questions of what can, and cannot, be asked during an interview to be particularly troublesome. Similarly, use of consumer reports has proven equally concerning. While employers have struggled to find footing in these areas, an additional concern has risen: How to handle job applications submitted via the Internet.
Overtime Changes Are Here
May 05, 2004
On April 20, 2004, the US Department of Labor (DOL) released its much-anticipated changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime regulations. The new rules revise the salary and duties tests used to determine whether an employee is entitled to overtime pay under federal law. Organized labor and other groups had criticized the DOL's proposed rules, claiming they would deny overtime pay to numerous employees who currently are entitled to such additional pay. The DOL appears to have taken into consideration some of the concerns voiced by the critics during the rulemaking process. The final rules were scheduled to be published in the April 23 Federal Register, and will take effect on Aug. 21, 2004.
It's 12 O'Clock: Do You Know Where Your Data Are? IP Protections for Databases
May 01, 2004
An economist once said that the reason talk is so cheap is because the supply generally exceeds demand. Not so with information. No matter how much is produced, people always seem to want more. And more information means more databases, and the amount of work involved in compiling and organizing information into databases can be staggering. Yet, in many cases, anyone can copy the stored data and essentially replicate all or a portion of the database at a mere fraction of the cost of creating the database in the first place. Some have argued that this freedom to copy acts as a disincentive for anyone to organize information into databases. After all, if the creator can't expect to reap a fair economic reward for the effort expended, why bother?
Prosecution History Disclaimer: Beware of What You Clearly and Unambiguously Say
May 01, 2004
Patent prosecutors typically are cautious when making arguments that distinguish their client's invention from the prior art. This caution was traditionally based on the concern that later, when the client enforced its patent rights against a potential infringer, these arguments may provide the basis for restricting the range of equivalents available to the patentee under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel. Prosecution history estoppel normally limits the range of equivalent elements that are available to satisfy a claim element under a doctrine of equivalents analysis (<i>ie</i>, when there is no literal infringement of that claim element). Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit not only reaffirm the significance of statements made during prosecution; they also extend their impact to a literal infringement analysis. A patentee who during prosecution "clearly and unequivocally" disavows the prior art (or even defines the invention) may affect the literal scope of the claims. This doctrine is now regularly referred to as prosecution history disclaimer.
The Dedication Rule's Effect on Business Strategy
May 01, 2004
While the Federal Circuit's direct assault on the applicability and scope of the doctrine of equivalents may have been set back by the Supreme Court in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,</i> 535 U.S. 722 (2002), the so-called Dedication Rule continues to limit the scope of equivalents under some circumstances. This controversial rule deems any subject matter that is disclosed in the specification, but falls outside the literal scope of the claims, to be dedicated to the public. This judicially created doctrine effectively denies patent protection, even under the doctrine of equivalents, to the subject matter that is disclosed, but left unclaimed, in the patent. This rule has been criticized both from legal and practical perspectives, and continued adherence to this rule could significantly impact the business policies and prosecution decisions of many patentees.
The Court's Proper Role in Construing the Claim of a Design Patent: Should a Picture Be Worth a Thousand Words?
May 01, 2004
The Federal Circuit has held that, as with utility patents, design patents must be construed by the court. <i>See Elmer v. ICC Fabricating, Inc.</i>, 67 F.3d 1571, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1995). This apparently simple mandate has proven difficult in practice. The single claim in a design patent typically consists only of a series of drawings depicting the patented design. The basic premise of <i>Markman</i> ' that a judge's experience with the interpretation of documents will likely allow him or her to produce a more accurate and consistent claim interpretation ' does not intuitively extend to design patents, nor is it apparent that a judge's interpretation of the drawings will be any more proper and uniform than a jury's interpretation.
In The Marketplace
May 01, 2004
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Is It a True Lease or a Loan?
May 01, 2004
<i>Part One of a Two-Part Series.</i>Anyone who has been in the leasing business for much time at all understands that a transaction that the parties describe as a "lease" can be either a "true lease" where the lessor owns the leased equipment or a "loan" which results in the lessee being the owner and the lessor having merely a security interest. The latter is commonly referred to as "disguised security interests" or "leases intended as security" or "financing leases." Many people also have a general understanding of the distinction between the two, and most of those reading this article have heard one person or another proclaim the bright-line rule that a lease with a dollar purchase option is a loan and a lease with a fair market value purchase option is a true lease.
Circuit Court Ruling on Nonmonetary Defaults Sets Up Conflict Over Bankruptcy Code
May 01, 2004
A recent circuit court decision regarding the interpretation of section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code has set up a conflict between two circuits. On March 15, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion regarding whether bankruptcy debtors are required to cure nonmonetary defaults prior to assuming unexpired leases under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §365. <i>In re Bankvest Capital Corp. (Eagle Insurance Co. v. Bankvest Capital Corp.)</i>, 360 F.3d 291 (1st Cir. 2004). The First Circuit found — expressly contrary to a holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals — that debtors are not required to cure such defaults, resulting in a split in the circuits over a very widely used section of the code.
Leveraged Lease Gone Bad? Avoid the Courtroom with Mediation
May 01, 2004
Throughout the 40-year history of U.S. leveraged leasing, deals have occasionally gone bad. Lessees default, markets change, equipment loses value ' sometimes even the best planned and executed deal may turn out to be the biggest problem in a lessor's portfolio.
