Participation in Standard-Setting Organizations
Some patent-owning companies choose to participate in standard-setting organizations (SSOs), such as the IEEE, IETF and ANSI. They do so for a variety of business reasons, including the opportunity to monitor industry trends and to influence technological advancement. However, the business advantages of participation must be balanced against its potential legal consequences to the company's IP rights. Accidental or premature disclosure, failure to disclose, and licensing and enforcement practices can lead to loss of patent and trade secret rights, equitable defenses for infringers, and antitrust concerns. The current litigation between Rambus and Infineon provides a cautionary tale for both SSOs and member companies of what can happen if a company participates in an SSO whose IP patent policy is not clearly defined. <i>See, e.g., Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG,</i> 164 F. Supp. 2d 743 (E.D. Va. 2001), <i>aff'd in part, rev'd in part, and vacated in part,</i> 318 Fed. 3d 1081 (Federal Circuit 2003). In order to avoid such losses, companies need to investigate the IP policies of the SSOs to which they belong and carefully assess and monitor their compliance with those policies.
The Quest for Class Certification
Last month, we introduced our primer on the "leniency" standard for FLSA actions, and its interplay with Rule 23 guidelines. We called the quest for class certification "the most feared battle waged in litigation," and went on to explain that if well-regarded class action practitioners were surveyed, there would almost assuredly be a consensus that the quest for class certification is exactly that to a targeted defendant.We discussed the FLSA's opt-in burden, and the liberal standard in our previous article. This month, we address the seemingly irreconcilable approaches taken by some courts.
Plaintiffs' Employment Lawyers Are No Longer Secure
Plaintiffs' employment lawyers contemplating bringing Title VII or other discrimination suits have long felt secure in the knowledge that, even if they lose at trial or at the summary judgment stage, their client will not be assessed attorney's fees. Any ambiguity regarding the meaning of a "prevailing party" entitled to fees under the Federal Rules was resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC</i>, 434 U.S. 412 (1977). The Supreme Court denied fees to the prevailing defendant employer in that Title VII case, pointing out that the EEOC's actions in bringing the case could not be characterized as without merit or unreasonable. Is that still the case?
Understanding Equitable Distribution
As the definition of marital property continues to expand and embrace more and more esoteric forms of property, equitable distribution cases become increasingly…
Recent Decisions Every New York Family Law Practitioner Should Know
The Court of Appeals decided a number of important family law cases over the past year, addressing an array of issues ranging from technical questions of the interface between the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and common law waiver to fundamental issues of protecting children from severe abuse and ensuring their support rights under the Child Support Standards Act. Following is a review of those cases.
Did You Expect to Be Paid Too?
The option of seeking redress by asking the court to compel the client's spouse to pay is foreclosed, according to a recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in the case of <i>Frankel v. Frankel</i>, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9279 (App. Div., 2d Dept. 9/8/03).
