Legal News Archives - Page 59 of 67 - The National Law Forum

NLR 2011 Law Student Writing Competition

The National Law Review is pleased to announce the commencement of the Winter Law Student Writing Contest:

The National Law Review (NLR) consolidates practice-oriented legal analysis from a variety of sources for easy access by lawyers, paralegals, law students, business executives, insurance professionals, accountants, compliance officers, human resource managers, and other professionals who wish to better understand specific legal issues relevant to their work.

The NLR Law Student Writing Competition offers law students the opportunity to submit articles for publication consideration on the NLR Web site. No entry fee is required. Applicants can submit an unlimited number of entries each month.

Winning submissions will initially be published online in November and December 2011.
In each of these months, entries will be judged and the top two to four articles chosen will be featured on the NLR homepage for a month. Up to 5 runner-up entries will also be posted in the NLR searchable database each month.
Each winning article will be displayed accompanied by the student’s photo, biography, contact information, law school logo, and any copyright disclosure.
All winning articles will remain in the NLR database for two years (subject to earlier removal upon request of the law school).

In addition, the NLR sends links to targeted articles to specific professional groups via e-mail. The NLR also posts links to selected articles on the “Legal Issues” or “Research” sections of various professional organizations’ Web sites. (NLR, at its sole discretion, maydistribute any winning entry in such a manner, but does not make any such guarantees nor does NLR represent that this is part of the prize package.)

Why Students Should Submit Articles:

Students have the opportunity to publicly display their legal knowledge and skills.
The student’s photo, biography, and contact information will be posted with each article, allowing for professional recognition and exposure.
Winning articles are published alongside those written by respected attorneys from Am Law 200 and other prominent firms as well as from other respected professional associations.
Now more than ever, business development skills are expected from law firm associates earlier in their careers. NLR wants to give law students valuable experience generating consumer-friendly legal content of the sort which is included for publication in law firm client newsletters, law firm blogs, bar association journals and trade association publications.
Student postings will remain in the NLR online database for up to two years, easily accessed by potential employers.
For an example of a contest winning student written article from Northwestern University, please click here or please review the winning submissions from Spring 2011.

Content Guidelines and Deadlines

Content Guidelines must be followed by all entrants to qualify. It is recommended that articles address the following monthly topic areas:

November 2011 Feature: Intellectual Property law, Tax law and Labor & Employment law. (Submission deadline: Monday October 17th , 2011)
December 2011 Feature: Healthcare law, Financial Institution law and Bankruptcy and Restructuring law. (Submissions deadline: Monday November 14th, 2011)

Articles covering current issues related to other areas of the law may also be submitted. Entries must be submitted via email to lawschools@natlawreview.com by 5:00 pm Central Standard Time on the dates indicated above.

Articles will be judged by NLR staff members on the basis of readability, clarity, organization, and timeliness. Tone should be authoritative, but not overly formal. Ideally, articles should be straightforward and practical, containing useful information of interest to legal and business professionals. Judges reserve the right not to award any prizes if it is determined that no entries merit selection for publication by NLR. All judges’ decisions are final. All submissions are subject to the NLR’s Terms of Use.

Students are not required to transfer copyright ownership of their winning articles to the NLR. However, all articles submitted must be clearly identified with any applicable copyright or other proprietary notices. The NLR will accept articles previously published by another publication, provided the author has the authority to grant the right to publish it on the NLR site. Do not submit any material that infringes upon the intellectual property or privacy rights of any third party, including a third party’s unlicensed copyrighted work.

Manuscript Requirements

Format – HTML (preferred) or Microsoft^® Word
Length – Articles should be no more than 5,500 words, including endnotes.
Endnotes and citations – Any citations should be in endnote form and listed at the end of the article. Unreported cases should include docket number and court. Authors are responsible for the accuracy and proper format of related cites. In general, follow the Bluebook. Limit the number of endnotes to only those most essential. Authors are responsible for accuracy of all quoted material.
Author Biography/Law School Information –Please submit the following:
1. Full name of author (First Middle Last)
2. Contact information for author, including e-mail address and phone number
3. Author photo (recommended but optional) in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 150 x 200 pixels.
4. A brief professional biography of the author, running approximately 100 words or 1,200 characters including spaces.
5. The law school’s logo in JPEG format with a maximum file size of 1 MB and in RGB color format. Image size must be at least 300 pixels high or 300 pixels wide.
6. The law school mailing address, main phone number, contact e-mail address, school Web site address, and a brief description of the law school, running no more than 125 words or 2,100 characters including spaces.

To enter, an applicant and any co-authors must be enrolled in an accredited law school within the fifty United States. Employees of The National Law Review are not eligible. Entries must include ALL information listed above to be considered and must be submitted to the National Law Review at lawschools@natlawreview.com.

Any entry which does not meet the requirements and deadlines outlined herein will be disqualified from the competition. Winners will be notified via e-mail and/or telephone call at least one day prior to publication. Winners will be publicly announced on the NLR home page and via other media. All prizes are contingent on recipient signing an Affidavit of Eligibility, Publicity Release and Liability Waiver. The National Law Review 2011 Law Student Writing Competition is sponsored by The National Law Forum, LLC, d/b/a The National Law Review, 4700 Gilbert, Suite 47 (#230), Western Springs, IL 60558, 708-357-3317. This contest is void where prohibited by law. All entries must be submitted in accordance with The National Law Review Contributor Guidelines per the terms of the contest rules. A list of winners may be obtained by writing to the address listed above. There is no fee to enter this contest.

Congratulations to our Spring 2011 Law Student Writing Contest Winners!

Spring 2011:

Behavior Modification: Trial Lawyer's Edition

Posted in the National Law Review on September 22, 2011 an article regarding a lawyer that was defending himself, pro se by Kendall M. Gray of Andrews Kurth LLP:

Just about the time you think there is nothing new under the sun or nothing interesting to blog about, the legal profession continues to astound and amaze.

More specifically, trial lawyers will never let you down.

On Monday I was trolling my usual blog buffet and I saw this item on the ABA Blogabout a lawyer that was defending himself, pro se, in his own criminal trial.

You know the old saying, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. But this guy took it to a whole new level. He was essentially appearing in court with the human equivalent of a canine shock collar:

Four U.S. marshals will be in the courtroom as attorney Paul Bergrin goes on trial in federal court in Newark, N.J., next month in a racketeering case in which he is accused of operating his law firm as a criminal enterprise and conspiring with another New Jersey lawyer to murder government witnesses.

But that’s not not enough security, court officials apparently have decided. Bergrin, who is defending himself pro se, will also wear a hidden ankle bracelet. If he moves too far from his assigned area of the courtroom and violates rules against approaching the bench or the jury, he could get a jolting electric shock from the marshals, via the bracelet, . . . .

A jolting, electric shock for trial counsel who neglects to seek permission before approaching the bench?

Now this could come in handy. Really, really handy . . . .

Of course, my first thought was that the Supreme Court of Texas might find such a device useful for all of those trial lawyers who handle their own appeals when they are prone to wander from the podium in order to re-deliver their closing argument:

But do you give the button to Chief Justice Jefferson? He might be too restrained, nice guy that he is.
One button to each member of court? That could be dangerous, especially if all nine are fighting to get their questions answered. That gives new meaning to the words “hot bench.”
Maybe just give “the button” to Justice Hecht as the senior justice empowered to act on behalf of the court?

I’m probably just a bad and vindictive person, but I began to daydream about all the other habits of trial lawyers that such a device might plausibly correct. The list began to expand rapidly with everything from pet peeves that make my head explode to matters of real substance.

But before I publish my own list, I want to hear from you:

What are the things that other lawyers do that drive you crazy or make it harder to successfully do your job in representing the client?
What behaviors would you change if you could?
And in particular, what do lawyers do, often without thinking, for which you might give them a zap?
And what about you judges out there? Be anonymous if you need to, but what lawyer conduct do wish was Taze-worthy?

Use the comments. Weigh in. Speak out.

Or else.

Broker Malpractice Claim Does Not Require Expert Testimony Proving Reasonableness of Underlying Settlement

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Dana Ferestien of Williams Kastner regarding the reasonableness of an underlying products liability settlement is not a prerequisite to a broker malpractice claim.

On September 12, 2011, United States District Judge Lonny Suko ruled in Colman Coil Manufacturing, Inc. v. Seabury & Smith, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102238, that expert testimony regarding the reasonableness of an underlying products liability settlement is not a prerequisite to a broker malpractice claim.

The insured manufacturer had been sued for damages caused by an ammonia link in their equipment. Their liability insurer, Wausau, provided a reservation of rights defense, but filed a separate coverage action seeking a declaration that the policy’s total pollution exclusion eliminated coverage. Based upon advice from both their personal coverage counsel and appointed defense counsel, the insured elected to settle the products liability lawsuit for $1.15 million, with the insured paying $450,000 of the settlement. The insured then sued its broker, Seabury & Smith, alleging that their negligence had resulted in incomplete insurance.

Seabury & Smith argued on summary judgment that the professional malpractice claim failed, as a matter of law, because the insured did not have any expert to establish the reasonableness of the underlying settlement. Judge Sukorejected the argument, noting that there is no Washington authority imposing any expert testimony requirement. Judge Suko distinguished this scenario from cases in which there has been a consent judgment to settle the underlying liability claim. The Court concluded that it is for the finder of fact to weigh whether the insured acted reasonably in settling the underlying claim.

OFAC Settles Alleged Sanctions Violations for $88.3 million

Posted in the National Law Review an article by Thaddeus Rogers McBride and Mark L. Jensen of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP regarding OFAC’s settlements with financial institutions:

On August 25, 2011, a major U.S. financial institution agreed to pay the U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) $88.3 million to settle claims of violations of several U.S. economic sanctions programs. While OFAC settlements with financial institutions in recent years have involved larger penalty amounts, this August 2011 settlement is notable because of OFAC’s harsh—and subjective—view of the bank’s compliance program.

Background. OFAC has primary responsibility for implementing U.S. economic sanctions against specifically designated countries, governments, entities, and individuals. OFAC currently maintains approximately 20 different sanctions programs. Each of those programs bars varying types of conduct with the targeted parties including, in certain cases, transfers of funds through U.S. bank accounts.

As reported by OFAC, the alleged violations in this case involved, among other conduct, loans, transfers of gold bullion, and wire transfers that violated the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515, the Iranian Transactions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 560, the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 538, the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 593, the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 544, the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 594, and the Reporting, Procedures, and Penalties Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 501.

Key Points of Settlement. As summarized below, the settlement provides insight into OFAC’s compliance expectations in several ways:

1. “Egregious” conduct. In OFAC’s view, three categories of violations – involving Cuba, in support of a blocked Iranian vessel, and incomplete compliance with an administrative subpoena – were egregious under the agency’s Enforcement Guidelines. To quote the agency’s press release, these violations “were egregious because of reckless acts or omissions” by the bank. This, coupled with the large amount and value of purportedly impermissibly wire transfers involving Cuba, is likely a primary basis for the large $88.3 million penalty.

OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines indicate that, when determining whether conduct is “egregious,” OFAC gives “substantial” weight to (i) whether the conduct is “willful or reckless,” and (ii) the party’s “awareness of the conduct at issue.” 31 C.F.R. Part 501, App. A. at V(B)(1). We suspect that OFAC viewed the conduct here as “egregious” and “reckless” because, according to OFAC, the bank apparently failed to address compliance issues fully: as an example, OFAC claims that the bank determined that transfers in which Cuba or a Cuban national had interest were made through a correspondent account, but did not take “adequate steps” to prevent further transfers. OFAC’s emphasis on reckless or willful conduct, and the agency’s assertion that the bank was aware of the underlying conduct, underscore the importance of a compliance program that both has the resources to act, and is able to act reasonably promptly when potential compliance issues are identified.

2. Ramifications of disclosure. In this matter, the bank voluntarily disclosed many potential violations. Yet the tone in OFAC’s press release is generally critical of the bank for violations that were not voluntarily disclosed. Moreover, OFAC specifically criticizes the bank for a tardy (though still voluntary) disclosure. According to OFAC, that disclosure was decided upon in December 2009 but not submitted until March 2010, just prior to the bank receiving repayment of the loan that was the subject of the disclosure. Although OFAC ultimately credited the bank for this voluntary disclosure, the timing of that disclosure may have contributed negatively to OFAC’s overall view of the bank’s conduct.

This serves as a reminder that there often is a benefit of making an initial notification to the agency in advance of the full disclosure. This also serves as reminder of OFAC’s very substantial discretion as to what is a timely filing of a disclosure: as noted in OFAC’s Enforcement Guidelines, a voluntary self-disclosure “must include, or be followed within a reasonable period of time by, a report of sufficient detail to afford a complete understanding of an apparent violation’s circumstances.” (emphasis added). In this regard, OFAC maintains specific discretion under the regulations to minimize credit for a voluntary disclosure made (at least in the agency’s view) in an inappropriate or untimely fashion.

3. Size of the penalty. The penalty amount—$88.3 million—is substantial. Yet the penalty is only a small percentage of the much larger penalties paid by Lloyds TSB ($350 million), Credit Suisse ($536 million), and Barclays ($298 million) over the past few years. In those cases, although the jurisdictional nexus between those banks and the United States was less clear than in the present case, the conduct was apparently more egregious because it involved what OFAC characterized as intentional misconduct in the form of stripping wire instructions. The difference in the size of the penalties is at least partly attributable to the amount of money involved in each matter. It also appears, however, that OFAC is distinguishing between “reckless” conduct and intentional misconduct.

4. Sources of information. As noted, many of the violations in this matter were voluntarily disclosed to OFAC. The press release also indicates that certain disclosures were based on information about the Cuba sanctions issues that was received from another U.S. financial institution (it is not clear whether OFAC received information from that other financial institution). The press release also states that, with respect to an administrative subpoena OFAC issued in this matter, the agency’s inquiries were at least in part “based on communications with a third-party financial institution.”

It may not be the case here that another financial institution (or institutions) blew the proverbial whistle, but it appears that at least one other financial institution did provide information that OFAC used to pursue this matter. Such information sharing is a reminder that, particularly given the interconnectivity of the financial system, even routine reporting by financial institutions may help OFAC identify other enforcement targets.

5. Compliance oversight. As part of the settlement agreement, the bank agreed to provide ongoing information about its internal compliance policies and procedures. In particular, the bank agreed to provide the following: “any and all updates” to internal compliance procedures and policies; results of internal and external audits of compliance with OFAC sanctions programs; and explanation of remedial measures taken in response to such audits.

Prior OFAC settlements, such as those with Barclays and Lloyds, have stipulated compliance program reporting obligations for the settling parties. While prior agreements, such as Barclay’s, required a periodic or annual review, the ongoing monitoring obligation in this settlement appears to be unusual, and could be a requirement that OFAC imposes more often in the future. (Although involving a different legal regime, requirements with similarly augmented government oversight have been imposed in recent Foreign Corrupt Practices Act settlements, most notably the April 2011 settlement between the Justice Department and Johnson & Johnson. See Getting Specific About FCPA Compliance, Law360, at:http://www.sheppardmullin.com/assets/attachments/973.pdf).

Conclusions. We think this settlement is particularly notable for the aggression with which OFAC pursued this matter. Based on the breadth of the settlement, OFAC seems to have engaged in a relatively comprehensive review of sanctions implications of the bank’s operations, going beyond those allegations that were voluntarily self-disclosed to use information from a third party. Moreover, as detailed above, OFAC adopted specific, negative views about the bank’s compliance program and approach and seems to have relied on those views to impose a very substantial penalty. The settlement is a valuable reminder that OFAC can and will enforce the U.S. sanctions laws aggressively, and all parties—especially financial institutions—need to be prepared.

NLRB Permits Micro-Units In Specialty Healthcare Decision

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Mark A. Carter of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP regarding NLRB’s controversial decision to overturn 20 years of precedent:

In one of its most controversial decisions to date, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has overturned 20 years of precedent and will now permit unions to organize a minority share of an employer’s workforce. As a result of this decision, organized labor will be able to establish footholds in businesses where the majority of the employees may not desire to be represented by a union.

On August 26, 2011 the NLRB released its decision in Specialty Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB No. 83 (2011). In Specialty Healthcare, the United Steelworkers petitioned for a representational election in a bargaining unit that was very distinct from the typical “wall to wall” unit. For decades, the NLRB has concluded that where employees share a “community of interest” that the appropriate bargaining unit in a representational election should include all of the employees of the employer who are similarly situated. Typically this type of unit is called a “wall to wall” bargaining unit and its common description includes all “production and maintenance” workers employed by the employer excluding clerical, administrative and security employees. This scope of employees insured that the union would be elected where the majority of the employer’s employees desired to be represented by a union, but that where a majority of the employees did not desire to be represented, their terms and conditions of employment, and their workplace, would not be impacted by the presence of a labor union. Moreover, the “wall to wall” unit insured that there was not a fracturing of the employer’s workforce where several unions represented several small groups of employees making the collective bargaining unmanageable for any of the parties.

This logical and longstanding policy of Democratic and Republican majority labor boards has been scuttled.

In Specialty Healthcare, the employer operates a nursing home and rehabilitation center in Mobile, Alabama. Among the job classifications – or job titles – at this facility is a “CNA”, or, certified nursing assistant. Rather than seeking to represent all of the employer’s employees, the union petitioned for a bargaining unit consisting only of the CNAs. The employer objected on the basis of the NLRB’s decision in Park Manor Care Center, 305 NLRB 872 (1991) and the Board’s longstanding practice of not certifying “fractured” units but insisting that all of the employer’s employees who shared a community of interest comprised an appropriate bargaining unit. The NLRB, through a regional director, initially concluded that this petition was appropriate and directed an election be held amongst only the employer’s full and part time CNAs. The employer appealed this decision, in essence, by asking the NLRB to review the regional director’s decision. The NLRB not only accepted this obligation but requested briefs from interested parties regarding whether its decision inPark Manor and its longstanding practice of certifying only bargaining units of all of the employees with a community of interest should remain the law. Significantly, the NLRB also requested interested parties’ positions regarding whether its decision should have application in all industries rather than just the health care industry which maintains unique standards under the National Labor Relations Act.

After inviting and, presumably, considering this argument, the NLRB reversed the Park Manor decision and will now permit appropriate units to be petitioned-for and certified even when larger and “more appropriate” bargaining units exist in the employer’s workforce.

“Nor is a unit inappropriate simply because it is small. The fact that a proposed unit is small is not alone a relevant consideration, much less a sufficient ground for finding a unit in which employees share a community of interest nevertheless inappropriate.”

To that end, the NLRB wrote that it will focus on the community of interest of the employees, the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, geographic considerations “etc., any of which may justify the finding of a small unit.” An employer can challenge the determination regarding the composition of the unit, but the Board will now require that the burden to establish that a bargaining unit is not appropriate will be an “overwhelming” community of interest between the employees in the petitioned-for unit and the larger workforce.

“…when employees or a labor organization petition for an election in a unit of employees who are readily identifiable as a group (based on job classifications, departments, functions, work locations, skills, or other similar factors) and the Board finds that the employees in the group share a community of interest after considering the traditional criteria, the Board will find the petitioned-for unit to be an appropriate unit, despite a contention that employees in the unit could be placed in a larger unit which would also be appropriate or even more appropriate, unless the party so contending demonstrates that employees in the larger unit share an overwhelming community of interest with those in the petitioned-for unit…”

The NLRB did agree that cases may exist where the petitioned-for unit inappropriately “fractured” the workforce. For example, had the union petitioned only for CNAs working the night shift vs. all employees, or only CNAs working on the first floor and not the second floor, but it is eminently clear that the Board will direct elections and certify bargaining units of employees simply because they have one job title or job function and permit the union to ignore the other employees with distinct job titles or functions even when that means that the minority of the employees overall support the union. The reality is that all of the employees will have to deal with the union.

Employers should take no stock in some press suggestions that this decision has limited application to the health care industry. There is no holding or assurance that the rule is limited to the health care industry merely because the case arose within the health care industry. Rather, employers will be well served to heed the opening of Member Brian Hayes dissent which is absolutely accurate:

“Make no mistake. Today’s decision fundamentally changes the standard for determining whether a petitioned-for unit is appropriate in any industry subject to the Board’s jurisdiction.”

The Truth about Clean Energy Jobs

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by U.S. Department of Energy in response to The Washington Post’s assertions about the Department of Energy’s loan programs:

The Washington Post’s assertions today about the Department of Energy’s loan programs are both incomplete and inaccurate.

Here are the facts: over the past two years, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program has supported a robust, diverse portfolio of more than 40 projects that are investing in pioneering companies as we work to regain American leadership in the global race for clean energy jobs. These projects include major advances for our renewable power industry including the world’s largest wind farm, several of the world’s largest solar generation facilities, and one of the country’s first commercial-scale cellulosic ethanol plants. Collectively, the projects plan to employ more than 60,000 Americans, create tens of thousands more indirect jobs, provide clean electricity to power three million homes, and save more than 300 million gallons of gasoline a year, all while investing in American competitiveness. What matters to the men and women who have those jobs is that the investments that this Administration is making are helping to keep factories open and running.

When the Washington Post claims that the program has created 3,500 jobs, here is what the reporters are excluding:

33,000 American auto jobs saved at Ford. The Post article does acknowledge that the program enabled Ford to modernize its factories to produce more fuel efficient vehicles, which a Ford spokeswoman credits for “helping retain the 33,000 jobs by ensuring our employees can build the fuel-efficient cars people want to drive.”
More than 7,300 construction jobs. Many of the projects funded by the program are wind and solar power plants, which create significant numbers of construction jobs but once built can be operated inexpensively without a large workforce. But the Washington Post chose to ignore all of those jobs. If a community built a new highway or a bridge that employed 200 workers directly during construction – and many more in the supply chain — and that also strengthened the local economy by making it faster to transport goods, would anyone say that the project created zero jobs?
Supply chain jobs. While these jobs aren’t reflected in official government estimates because of the difficulty in obtaining a precisely accurate count, that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. When a company spends $100 million or $200 million building a wind farm or a solar power plant, most of that economic value actually goes into the supply chain – creating huge manufacturing opportunities for the United States.

In fact, when you look at the Washington Post’s graphic, you can see that the program has already created or saved roughly 44,000 jobs. Many of the projects it has funded are just getting going, and many of the loans won’t even go out the door until the next few weeks. Others have not ramped fully up to scale. But we are on pace to achieve more than 60,000 direct jobs – and many more in the supply chain.

Here’s a simple example:

Last year, the Department awarded a loan guarantee to build the Kahuku wind farm in Hawaii. It employed 200 workers during construction. Those wind turbines were built in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The project also features a state of the art energy storage system supplied by a company in Texas. The supply chain reached 104 U.S. businesses in 21 states. But by the Washington Post’s count, none of those jobs – not even the 200 direct construction jobs – should count.

What’s critically important and completely ignored by the Washington Post, is that the value of this program can’t be measured in operating jobs alone. The investments are helping to build a new clean energy industry here in America. We are now on pace to double renewable energy generation from wind and solar from the time the President took office. Yet we are still in danger of falling behind China and other nations that are competing aggressively for leadership in these technologies. This is a race we can and will win, but only if we make these investments today. These investments will pay dividends not just in today’s jobs but in entire industries and supply chains – and in cleaner air and water for our children and grandchildren.

One of the goals of the program is to create projects that will encourage the private sector to take the financing risk on other, similar projects on its own. If we can show, for example, that a commercial scale cellulosic biofuel plant in Iowa can succeed, the private sector will likely finance many more of them around the country.

America’s economic strength has been built on technological leadership. The next great technological revolution is the clean energy revolution, and this Administration is committed to making sure that America will continue to lead the world.

Fifty Ways To Leave Your Lover And Nine Ways To Attack Patents

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Warren Woessner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. about the Patent Reform Bill, H.R. 1249:

As a “quick guide” to the Patent Reform Bill, H.R. 1249, that will soon become law, these are the sections of the Act and of the present statute that will all be, or remain effective, upon enactment, to facilitate blocking the issuance of applications or cancellation of objectionable claims. I will try to be brief, but it is not easy. Section references are to section of the Bill; “s.” references are to sections of 35 U.S.C.

Sec. 3: Derivation proceedings (This replaces s. 291 – Interfering patents)
Sec. 6: Citation of prior art and written statements (Modifies s. 301 – Citation of prior art in an issued patent).
S. 302-307 – “Old” ex parte reexamination is not affected by Bill. (But, remember, ex parte reexamination is essentially unused now.)
S. 251-253. Reissue section is unscathed.
Sec. 6: Inter partes review (Substantially modifies inter partes reexamination – must wait to file until after “opposition period” for post-grant review).
Sec. 6: s. 321: Post-grant review (This is the new “opposition” section – must be filed within 9 mos. of issuance.)
Sec. 8: Adds s. 122(e) to permit preissuance submissions of art by third parties.
Sec. 12: Adds s. 257: “Supplemental examination to consider, reconsider, or correct information.” Commentators have noted that these proceedings will permit patent owners to purge “fraud,” but there are exceptions.
Sec. 18: Transitional post-grant review proceeding for review of validity ofbusiness method patents – Can be initiated by defendant in civil suit.

Since reissue, ex parte reexamination, and supplemental examination are owner-initiated, perhaps I should have titled this post, “Nine Ways to Limit Patent Protection”, but then I would have had to list sections involving limiting false marking suits and the ban on patenting human organisms. I hope that this will help you locate specific parts of the Bill and of 35 USC as the commentary begins to pile up. As Prof. Hal Wegner summarizes this array:

“A major feature of the [Bill] is the creation of a variety of new post-grant review procedures. The difficulty with both the current and the new procedures results in part from the fact that essentially nothing is being taken away while time consuming procedures are added to the burden of the upper end professionals at the Patent Office, all at a time when the Board is slowly sinking into an ever greater backlog.” (H.C. Wegner, The 2011 Patent Law: Law and Practice, Version 5.0, Sept. 8, 2011).

Hear! Hear! And, by the way, the Patent Office Board of Appeals and Interferences is now “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board.” Check out its duties at Section 6 of the Bill.

Mind the Gap: Reducing the Sponsorship Gap Between Men and Women in the Workplace

Recently posted in the National Law Review an interesting article by Brande Stellings of Catalyst Inc. regarding how a mentor differs from a sponsor and compensation that women face and the gaps in career advancement and compensation that women face

While recently moderating a panel on mentors and sponsors in the workplace, I was struck when one of the panelists, a seasoned, extremely accomplished General Counsel at a prestigious institution, mused aloud that she had had many sponsors in retrospect, but did not know there was a name for it.

This is not surprising. Everyone knows what a mentor is. But not everyone knows how a mentor differs from a sponsor. And recent Catalyst researchindicates it is this critical difference that helps explain the gaps in career advancement and compensation that women face right out of the gate, as well as over time, in comparison to their male peers.

Statistics regarding women’s advancement in the legal profession are well-known. The National Association of Women Lawyers (“NAWL”) annual survey of women in AmLaw 200 law firms shows that women’s representation in the equity partner ranks has plateaued at the 15-16% range in the five years since NAWL began the survey. The MCCA survey of women general counsels in the Fortune500 fares a bit better, with women clocking in just under 19%. These numbers are not dissimilar to women in US business generally. The annual Catalyst census of women’s representation of Fortune 500 Board directors and executive officers has also stalled out in the 14-15% range.

How do we move off this plateau and get closer to gender parity in our top leadership positions?

For years, many have looked to mentoring as a solution. Yet, for all the time and resources invested in mentoring, it has not yielded dramatic results. Indeed, Catalyst research has revealed a paradox. According to Catalyst’s landmark study of high-potential MBA graduates, Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement, more women than men reported having mentors, but mentoring provided a much bigger pay-off for men than women. For example, mentoring was a statistically significant predictor of promotion for men but not for women. We also found that men with mentors made more than women with mentors in their first post-MBA job – to the tune of $9260.

Why is it that men reap much bigger rewards from mentoring than women in terms of promotion and compensation?

Mentoring: Necessary but Insufficient for Advancement found that although more women than men have mentors, women’s mentors have less clout. In other words, men are more likely to be mentored by CEOs or other senior executives who are in a position to act on behalf of their protégés. These powerful mentors act as sponsors. A sponsor is someone with power and rank and significant influence on decision-making processes. A sponsor can ensure that a high-performing woman’s work is noticed, that she is put on key projects or client engagements, and advocate for her promotion.

Take the example of a woman partner who is now a leader in her firm and in the profession. When she first came up for partner at her firm, she and her supporters assumed she would make partner. When she did not, her supporters rallied around her, engaged the support of other partners, including, critically, a member of the partner election committee, and she made partner the following year.

In the example above, note that the most important work of the lawyer’s sponsors was done behind closed doors. As a sponsor stated in our latest report:

A lot of decisions…are made when you’re not in the room, so you need somebody who can…advocate for you and can bring up the important things of why you should advance. You need somebody or people at that table…speaking for you….I can’t think of a person who rose without a sponsor or significant sponsors.

Catalyst research regarding differences between women and men’s mentors in the high-potential MBA population corresponds to the findings in Catalyst’sWomen of Color in US Law Firms research report. Of all the groups of lawyers Catalyst surveyed, women of color were the most likely to say they had a mentor, and white men were the least likely to say they had a mentor. The difference emerges in terms of access to influential mentors. Women of color were leastlikely to feel their mentors were influential.

Sponsorship does not replace mentoring, by any means. Mentoring is still necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own. Good advice without the opportunity to put that advice into action will take one only so far. As Catalyst research demonstrates, women get a lot of advice, but are not getting ahead.

To learn more about the latest research on sponsorship, and hear from women leaders in the business and legal world, join me at the Seventh Annual National Association of Women Lawyers General Counsel Institute on November 3, 2011 for a panel discussion, Beyond Mentoring: Career Advancement Strategies. For more information on NAWL’s General Counsel Institute and to register, visit NAWL’s website.

Ten Years Later : The legacy of September 11

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Morgan O’Rourke of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS) regarding moments, none resonates so clearly in my mind as the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Of all the “where were you when?” moments, none resonates so clearly in my mind as the attacks of September 11, 2001. I’m not a sentimental person by any means but even a decade later, I find myself getting choked up when watching or reading reports of that day.

Everyone has a story. I was working in Midtown Manhattan. From my 20th floor office window, I had a view of the towers and watched as they buckled and fell before my eyes. No one in the office said anything. There were no words.

As I made my way to the train that would take me home to Long Island, the city was in shock. The expressions of sorrow, horror, confusion and fear that I saw likely mirrored my own. As I walked, I stared in a daze at the black smoke in the distance until I realized that I had been walking in the middle of the street for blocks with no regard for traffic. But no car horns ever sounded. At the train station, the mood was the same. Even though trains were delayed, no riders complained. Who would dare when you were sharing the platform with downtown workers covered in the dust of collapsed buildings that once dominated the New York skyline?

When I finally made it home, everyone wanted to hear about what I saw, but I didn’t want to talk about it. How do you describe what it’s like to watch a skyscraper full of people fall to the ground?

Thankfully, no one I knew died. I was lucky. Loss was everywhere, however, and when I finally returned to the city after a few days, sagging shoulders and hollow, glassy-eyed stares were all too common. I had to stop reading the newspapers because the reports became too excruciating. It was all I could do to keep from crying.

It’s a cliche to say that the world irrevocably changed on September 11, but it did. In a sense, the world shrank. Terrorism was no longer something that only happened overseas. The fears of the world were our fears now. And with that came the increased need for more and better security. To a certain extent, Americans had always taken their safety for granted, but now this kind of thinking was obsolete. The attacks showed us that all risks were possible and our mitigation plans were going to have to change to reflect this reality. Ten years later, this mindset lives on every time we go to the airport or participate in a disaster preparedness drill. It is a testament to our resiliency that we now find most of these things to be annoying. Evidently, not even terrorists could stop us from complaining.

If there can be anything positive to take away from this tragedy, perhaps it is that September 11 has made us more vigilant to all the risks that are around us and, as a result, organizations and individuals alike have taken great steps to reduce these threats. We still have blindspots, as evidenced by Hurricane Katrina, for instance. But overall, the argument could be made that in some ways we may be safer than we were 10 years ago.

Of course, this doesn’t mean the painful memories of September 11 have vanished, particularly for the families and friends of the nearly 3,000 people who died that day.

But there has been progress. At the World Trade Center site, the National September 11 Memorial and Museum will open this month on the anniversary of the attacks, while the new One World Trade Center steadily climbs to its eventual 1,776-foot height after years of political infighting and financial controversy. Hopefully, these signs of rebirth, coupled with the memory of those we lost, can inspire us to move beyond tragedy and create a new legacy for September 11 — a legacy of a better, safer world.

Senate Passes Sweeping Patent Reform Legislation

Recently posted in the National Law Review an article by Linda C. Emery, Mark F. Foley, Alexander M. Gerasimow, and Gottlieb John Marmet regarding the new legislation on September 8, 2011 designed to significantly overhall the US patent system:

The U. S. Senate passed sweeping legislation on September 8, 2011, designed to significantly overhaul the U.S. patent system. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“Act”) (HR 1249) makes numerous changes to the U.S. patent laws, most notably conforming U.S. patent law to the laws of most other countries by granting patent protection to the first person to file for patent protection rather than the first to invent, as it is now. Portions of the Act will take effect immediately, while others will become effective in 12 to 18 months. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law promptly.

Other notable changes to the patent laws include:

Third parties are given the opportunity to challenge the Patent Office’s decision to grant a patent.
Third parties may cite prior art to the Patent Office during prosecution of a patent application.
Strategies to reduce taxes are not patentable.
Only the government and those suffering a competitive injury will be allowed to sue for false patent marking.
Failure to obtain the advice of counsel cannot be used to prove willful infringement.
Creates a mechanism by which the Patent Office will reevaluate and possibly invalidate previously issued business method patents.
Eliminates the requirement that inventors describe the “best mode” of making and using the invention as a basis for challenging the validity of a patent.
Allows individual inventors or very small companies to file patent applications at significantly lower fees, allowing those small companies and inventors to afford filing a patent application where they might not otherwise be able to afford such an application.

Companies and individuals who already have patents or pending patent applications should review their current practices and bring them in-line with the new patent laws in order to maintain their competitive edge. Inventors should also file an application as soon as possible, and must take additional steps to avoid disclosure or commercialization of their inventions prior to filing a patent application or risk losing the right to seek patent protection.

Category: Legal News