Non-disclosure Agreements in Venture Capital Transactions
September 03, 2003
Occasionally a venture fund will receive a request from a potential portfolio company for the venture fund to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to commencement of due diligence. The proposed non-disclosure agreement would commit the venture fund to maintaining the confidentiality of the company's information disclosed to the venture fund in the course of the due diligence investigation. Entering into non-disclosure agreements could restrict the future investing and disclosing activities of the venture fund or its principals.
The Essential Guide to Liquidation Preferences
September 03, 2003
A liquidation preference gives the VC investor a "first right" to any proceeds available to shareholders in the event of a liquidation or trade sale of the company. Although a liquidation preference provides the VC investor with downside protection by giving them the first money out of the company that is paid to shareholders, it can also significantly increase the upside to an investment.
Around the Firms
September 03, 2003
Movement among major law firms and corporations.
The Lateral Partner Process: Three Perspectives
September 03, 2003
According to <i>The American Lawyer</i>, fully 40% of partners in the AmLaw 200 firms will move laterally at least once as partners. This is an astonishing statistic, since lateral partner movement was virtually unheard of a generation ago. Freed from the stigma that once haunted a partner who abandoned his partnership, today's law partners tend to be pragmatists who no longer view their firms as homes for life. Instead, they see them as vehicles to drive their businesses to higher levels. In this article, we take a brief look at lateral partner recruitment from the different perspectives of the law firms, the candidates and the recruiters.
IN THE MARKETPLACE
September 02, 2003
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
The Impact of HIPAA Privacy Regulations on Discovery of Plaintiffs' Medical Records
September 02, 2003
When products liability defense counsel first heard of the new privacy regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA Privacy Regulations), most counsel probably thought that only their regulatory healthcare colleagues would be affected by these detailed and complicated laws. How great an impact the HIPAA Privacy Regulations will have on product liability litigation in general is yet to be seen, but it is clear that these regulations will have an immediate effect on discovery of medical records. Under the statutory or common law of most states, when a plaintiff files a suit that puts his/her medical or health condition at issue, the plaintiff waives his/her right to privacy, to at least some extent, in his/her medical records. When the HIPAA Privacy Regulations became enforceable on April 14, 2003, this was no longer the case. Because the HIPAA Privacy Regulations provide strict privacy protection for a patient's medical information, even if the patient filed a lawsuit with his/her health at issue, discovery of the patient's medical records could become more difficult for product liability defense counsel. However, defense counsel still will have several options to obtain discovery of a plaintiff's medical records under the HIPAA Privacy Regulations.
The Untapped Potential of IP Finance
September 02, 2003
Over the past few years, business, legal, and accounting authorities have quite rightly pointed out that corporate IP has far greater potential than its owners usually exploit. The consultancy McKinsey & Company has offered that, as a rule of thumb, a company that owns at least 450 patents and spends $50 million or more a year on R&D should possess enough intellectual property to bring some of it to market. Typically, 10% of the patent portfolio could be put to work in this way. McKinsey also suggests that IP assets could generate 5% to 10% of a company's operating income with little initial capital investment. Thus, effective IP-asset management can be equivalent to the improvement that might be expected from a 20% cut in expenses or from a successful acquisition. See Elton JJ, Shah BR, and Voyzey JN, 'Intellectual Property. Partnering for Profit,' The McKinsey Quarterly, 2002, Number 4 Technology.
Package Patent Licensing After Microsoft
September 02, 2003
The law governing package licensing of patents is currently undergoing a significant change. Historically, package licenses were subject to a 'per se' liability under the controlling legal doctrines. Using this per se test, a package license could be rendered unenforceable absent any inquiry into the actual market effects of the license. The recent case of <i>United States v. Microsoft</i>, 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), marks, however, the emergence of an antitrust doctrine called the 'rule of reason' that is likely to become the dominant legal doctrine for testing package licensing of patents. This is a significant change because the rule of reason is a market-based approach that balances the anticompetitive and pro-competitive benefits of the licensing practice. Thus, a package license may be held to be enforceable even if it would have failed the traditional per se test of the patent misuse doctrine or antitrust laws.
Understanding the Proposed New European Community Patent
September 02, 2003
Most inventors new to the patent system express a desire for an international patent — a monopoly good across the whole world from a single application. While it is unlikely that their desire will ever be satisfied, the prospect of being able to offer a patent throughout Europe in the form of a Community Patent may soon become reality. Such a Community Patent would be effective across all of the soon to be 25 member states of the European Union (EU).
