Work for Hire Agreements Do Not Provide Beneficial Copyright Ownership
September 01, 2003
In order to sue for copyright infringement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to be either the legal or beneficial owner of the copyright in the infringed work. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found that the creator of a work made for hire cannot be either a legal or beneficial owner of a copyright in such a work.
IP News
September 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Use of an Invention: 'Anticipating'?
September 01, 2003
Under U.S. patent law, an inventor is entitled to a patent if the invention is useful, novel, and nonobvious. The "novelty" prong of this tripartite test is controlled by 35 U.S.C. '102, which defines the "prior art" (<i>ie,</i> already existing technology) that can "anticipate," or render non-novel, the invention. In general, an invention sought to be patented is anticipated when it already exists in the prior art, having been placed there either by a third party or through the inventor's own actions. Under '102, prior use of the invention can anticipate a patent in certain circumstances. Specifically, the statute states that: "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was ... used by others ... before the invention thereof by the applicant ...; or (b) the invention was ... in public use ... more than one year prior to the date of the application.
Analyzing Provisional Rights for Patent Applicants
September 01, 2003
With the passage of the Domestic Publication of Foreign Filed Patent Applications Act of 1999, the U.S. Congress instituted a pre-grant patent publication system. As a result, the USPTO must now publish domestic utility patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000 within 18 months of their earliest priority date, unless conditions for preventing publication are met.
Costs of Being Public Rise 90% under Sarbanes-Oxley
September 01, 2003
<b><i>A New Study Confirms What Has Been Thought All Along</i></b> Costs directly associated with being public have almost doubled as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley (the Act), with more increases on the way, according to a study by our national law firm, Foley & Lardner. The rise in costs, which affects all public companies regardless of market capitalization or revenue, largely is driven by increases in accounting fees, director and officer insurance premiums, and legal fees.
When Should an Audit Committee Consider Independent Counsel?
September 01, 2003
As widely reported and discussed since July 2002, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the Act) imposes a substantial number of new responsibilities on the audit committee of a public company required to file periodic reports under the Securities Exchange Act. This article discusses those responsibilities.
Consequences for FCPA Compliance
September 01, 2003
<b><i>What Sarbanes-Oxley Has WroughtPart One of a Two-Part Article</i></b>We all know by now that the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was designed to strengthen corporate governance of publicly traded companies in the wake of Enron and other corporate accounting and fraud scandals of recent years. Its focus was principally on domestic corporate conduct. However, in just the short time since its enactment in 2002, the Act has begun to have a profound impact on other areas of corporate compliance and risk management as well.
Releasing the Albatross
September 01, 2003
In the context of large Chapter 11 cases, the resolution of disputed claims can often be the proverbial albatross around the neck of the debtor, delaying the closing of the debtor's case to the detriment of the debtor's estate.
The Effect of Bankruptcy on a Subchapter S Election
September 01, 2003
A new tax case from the U.S. Tax Court addresses the question of whether the filing of a Chapter 11 case by a Subchapter S corporation terminates the company's Subchapter S election. This case is important to the shareholders of a Subchapter S corporation that might have post-petition taxable income.
