The Latest Update on the New Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) Program

Mintz Logo

It has been a long time since we had any notable updates on the gTLD process to report.  However, after a slow start, the new gTLD program is now in full swing.  On March 22, 2013, ICANN released the first round of Initial Evaluations to the general public. This was the first major milestone of the gTLD program.  As a reminder, there are three possible outcomes of this Initial Evaluation:  1) Pass: the application was found to be consistent with the requirements in the Applicant Guidebook and can advance to the next phase; 2) Eligible for Extended Evaluation: additional information was requested by the Financial, Technical/Operational, Registry Services, or Geographic Names evaluation panels; or 3) Ineligible for Further Review: the application was determined not to meet the relevant criteria in the Applicant Guidebook.  The next round of Initial Evaluations was released on May 24, 2013, bringing the total number of passing applications to 433.  ICANN has also announced that it has ramped up to releasing the results of these Initial Evaluations  in batches of 100 prioritized applications per week.

The most recent results of the Initial Evaluations are available here.  https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/viewstatus

Applicants that passed the Initial Evaluations have now moved onto the contracting phase and pre-delegation testing to determine whether the applicant meets the technical requirements of the program.  However, applicants in string contention will need to wait for the string it is in contention with and resolve that contention before proceeding.

This current progress, however, could potentially be hindered if ICANN choses to implement the recent recommendations from the Governmental Advisory Committee (“GAC”). On April 11th, the GAC released its Beijing Communique, outlining recommendations for new TLDs.  Among the numerous recommendations of the new TLD program, the GAC recommended the following:

  1. The GAC identified several strings that it recommended should not proceed beyond the Initial Evaluation phase.
  2. The GAC requested a written briefing about the ability of the applicant to alter the string applied for in order to address the GAC’s concerns.
  3. The GAC suggested that ICANN reconsider its position on singular and plural strings, since the inclusion of both could lead to potential user confusion.
  4. The GAC recommended six new safeguard should apply to all new gTLDs, including WHOIS verification and checks, mitigation of abusive activities, procedures for maintaining documentation, procedures for handling complaints and stringent consequences for violation of the requirements.
  5. The GAC further advised that ICANN should carefully consider community feedback on applications from interested groups.
  6. The GAC recommended that ICANN should develop clear policies for handling applications for strings such as .WTF, .GRIPE, .SUCKS, .FAIL in order to reduce cyber bullying and misuse.

The full text of the GAC’s recommendations is available here.

For now, however, ICANN appears to be on track to complete Initial Evaluations on all applications by August 2013 and to roll out the first new gTLDs by the end of July.

Article By:

 of

Canadians, the American Dream, and the EB-5 Investor Visa

Altro Levy Logo

It’s that time of year when Canadians wintering south of the border begin to realize that fairly soon they will be packing their things and making the long trip north again. Some of them will do so willingly, eager to get back to friends and family, others will consider extending their stay by another couple of weeks or months, and still others will wonder if there is not some way to make a permanent move south.

The cliché of the Canadian “Snow Bird” exists, because it is a reality. Every winter thousands of Canadians travel south to places like Florida, Arizona, California and Hawaii. The majority retired, they may effectively spend half of their retirement Stateside.

Agreements between the US and Canada make this yearly passage possible. Under US immigration laws, Canadians are generally allowed entry as a visitor in the US for up to 6 months (180 days) at a time when they cross the US border by land, air or sea.

When it comes to taxes, the US Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has its own set of rules completely distinct from US immigration law. The US IRS allows Canadians to spend up to 182 days in the US under its “substantial presence” test over the course of 3 years before requiring Canadians to file a non-resident US tax return. Even then, the Canada-US tax treaty provides protections to facilitate this reporting and to keep Canadians on side with both the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) and the IRS (see IRS Form 8833 Treaty Based Return Position Disclosure).

It is important for every Canadian spending time south of the border to make note of these separate, and sometimes conflicting, rules.

For those Canadians wishing to extend their stay in the US, they should look at both of these aforementioned rules to determine if this possibility exists for them. With the US and Canada announcing new initiatives to share information on the entry and exit of people across their shared border, it is possible that overstaying your 6 month entry to the US by even a few days could cause issues with US immigration next time you try to reenter the US. Additionally, for those who wish to avoid the hassle of US income tax filings, special care and attention should be given to the IRS’ “substantial presence” test.

What about those Canadians whose American Dream is not just passing October to April in the US, but rather relocating permanently?

While the US has various visa options available for those looking to work or start a business in the US, it does not have any retiree visa options, unless, perhaps, the applicant is closely related to a US citizen.

Those without a US citizen as a close relative who wish to immigrate to the US without the responsibility of working or starting a company may wish to consider the EB-5 Investor Visa.

The EB-5 Investor Visa was created by the Immigration Act of 1990, and it is a direct pathway to US permanent residency (also known as a US green card). Permanent residency allows you to live and work, or not work, in the US for as long as you would like. It also gives access to potential eligibility for programs such as US Social Security Insurance and Medicare.

To qualify for an EB-5 Investor Visa, the applicant is generally required to invest $1 Million USD in a business entity that creates or preserves at least 10 full-time jobs for US workers within 2 years. In exchange, the investor receives conditional permanent residency for the first two years, and full permanent residency at 2 years once he or she proves fulfillment of the visa requirements. It also allows the spouse and unmarried children under age 21 of the applicant to receive permanent residency.

For those who do not want or are not able to make a $1 Million USD investment, the US government will issue an EB-5 Investor Visa for investments of $500,000 USD in an approved “regional center” project, or if the passive investment is made in either a targeted low employment or rural area. Additionally, those who invest in regional centers receive the added benefit of being able to look to “indirect job creation” to fulfill the 10 full-time US jobs requirement.

Entrepreneurs starting an enterprise in the US may use the EB-5 visa, but it is equally accessible to passive investors looking for a way to make a permanent move to the US, especially when dealing with an approved regional center.

Article By:

 of

Bridge to Prosperity: New Bridge Between U.S. and Canada Approved

Varnum LLP

Michigan farmers are among legions of organizations expressing gratitude now that a new bridge between the U.S. and Canada has been approved by the Obama Administration, setting the stage for a sharp increase in trade between Michigan and Canada.

The presidential permit awarded by the State Department April 12 clears the way for construction to begin in Michigan on the New International Trade Crossing Bridge.  The new span  will “serve the national interest,” the State Department said in granting the permit.

Michigan is Canada’s largest trade partner, with trade in 2011 exceeding $70 billion. That’s nearly 11.7 percent of the total U.S. trade with Canada. More than 8,000 trucks currently cross the Detroit-Windsor border daily.

Called “Michigan’s Bridge to the Future,”  the New International Trade Crossing Bridge will be built near the existing Ambassador Bridge that links Detroit with Windsor. Michigan voters in November overwhelmingly rejected a ballot proposal spearheaded by Ambassador Bridge owner Matty Moroun to require voter approval for any bridge built between the U.S. and Canada.

Under a deal struck last year between Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper,  Canada will pay for the bridge, with construction costs repaid by Canada through tolls.  Snyder said in a statement the crossing will create jobs and get Michigan-made products to market quicker.”

From the standpoint of Michigan agriculture, this additional transportation capacity is vital to streamline and expand our access to markets in Canada,” Michigan Farm Bureau Legislative Counsel Matt Smego said in prepared remarks.

Construction has already started on the Canadian side. Michigan Gov. Snyder said he hopes for groundbreaking on the Detroit side within the next two to three years. Construction is expected to take seven years.

The city of Windsor, meanwhile,  on May 28 asked Michigan officials for more information regarding the Michigan Department of Transportation’s recommendation to open the existing Ambassador Bridge to trucks carrying hazardous materials for the first time in its 83-year history. The recommendation excludes the transportation of explosives.

Article By:

of

A Review of Legal Technology and Innovation: Leopard Solutions

computer broadcast world

In review is Leopard Solutions, provider of an online legal technology service that compiles, tracks and delivers a wealth of information about law firms and attorneys across the country.

History Behind the Technology and Origins in Legal Recruiting

Leopard Solutions is the brainchild of Laura Leopard, an actress turned legal recruiter turned Founder and CEO of the Leopard Solutions system. The origin of the system initially occurred in the midst of her acting career, when Ms. Leopard worked as a cold caller for legal recruiters and discovered a severe lack of accessible information. At that point, Ms. Leopard first conceived of the Leopard List, the premier informational database offered by Leopard Solutions, now one among other such systems featured. From a simple Excel spreadsheet that contained the Leopard List, Ms. Leopard eventually developed an innovative online resource for the legal community.

Intelligence Programs and Strategic Data Directed Towards the Legal Community

Leopard Solutions offers comprehensive and strategic data captured in various intelligence programs directed towards different sectors of the legal community, including law firms, legal recruiters and law students. These are ‘live databases” which are updated on a weekly basis. Firmscape, their law firm intelligence program, is updated any time new data becomes available. For instance, if new salary information becomes available or a new office is opened, it can be immediately added to the program.)  On the day I spoke with Ms. Leopard, the system monitored a total of 183 new associates joining law firms, 71 practitioners being promoted to partner status and 86 partners leaving their firm positions.

The Leopard List: Attorney Database & Lateral Recruitment Tool

Among these databases is the Leopard List, which houses information across the spectrum of attorneys, including partners, counsels and associates, from over 1600 law firms in 23 U.S. markets. Attorneys can be searched by their practice area, JD year, law school, states admitted to practice and more. Moreover, a click of the practitioner’s name conveniently yields his or her law firm attorney profile and users can search these biographies by keyword. The Leopard staff is assigned to read and manually peruse each individual law firm attorney profile to verify all of the information stored in the system. This “personal touch” extends to any gaps of information– Leopard has been known to reach out to the firm for details if need be.

In addition, the system reveals an attorney’s  “professional history” that tracks any change in the practitioner’s status, including lateral employment moves and promotions within the firm, moves from previous law firms and name changes. In other words, no need for a Google search– Leopard hand-delivers the nuts and bolts.

Firmscape: Law Firm Intelligence

Firmscape serves as another example of Leopard successfully consolidating and analyzing information, in this instance by capturing a big-picture view of the legal industry. To say Firmscape collects a snapshot of the legal industry is an understatement- rather, this system showcases the evolution of the industry. Perhaps most helpful to legal recruiters, Firmscape sizes up the top law firms in the country and their starting salaries, practitioner lateral moves, and growth in practicing areas, among other aspects. Like the Leopard List, Firmscape is easily navigated and can be mined for reports on specific variables, such as practice area, specialty, firm history and promotion record.

Other Intelligence Programs for the Legal Community

Other systems include Leopard Reporting, which gives an overview of all the law firms in the system (currently 1666); Leopard Job Search, which monitors 655 law firms twice a day for job postings; Leopard Solutions for Law School, which offers law firm resource tools to law students; the Leopard Job Board, geared towards both legal recruiters and applicants; and Leopard Solutions Hot Spot, which aggregates all national news available for the firms amassed in the database.

A Technological Model for Timely, Interactive and Dynamic Data

Perhaps most notable about Leopard Solutions is the absence of any parallel technology in the market. The company’s model of keeping law firms under its radar and going to long lengths to obtain searchable data distinguishes it from other models which rely exclusively on web crawlers or press for information. In addition, Leopard’s model reaches far beyond displaying data but permits the viewer to target and interact with the information though reports and keyword searches. Finally, the company aims to stay reactionary, current and attuned with the needs of the market. Ms. Leopard often relies on clients’ counsel to further develop their system. A cutting-edge product, Leopard Solutions keeps up with the fluctuating legal landscape with its efficiency and accuracy.

EEOC Files Two Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Lawsuits in Two Weeks

barnes

The EEOC recently filed its first-ever lawsuit alleging a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) – and subsequently filed its second GINA lawsuit one week later.

The first lawsuit settled, with a fabrics distributor paying $50,000 and agreeing to take other specified actions (i.e. posting an anti-discrimination notice, among other things) after the EEOC alleged a violation of GINA and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Specifically, with respect to GINA, the EEOC charged that the distributor violated the Act when it asked the woman for her family medical history in a post-offer medical examination, including questions relating to the existence of heart disease, hypertension, cancer, tuberculosis, diabetes, arthritis, and “mental disorders” in her family.

The second lawsuit remains pending and was filed against a nursing and rehabilitation center. The EEOC similarly charged that the center violated GINA when it requested family medical history in a post-offer, pre-employment medical examination. The second lawsuit also alleges violations of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

dna (1)

According to the EEOC, GINA “makes it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information, which includes family medical history; and also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing such information.”

As noted in both press releases, one of the six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan is for the agency to address emerging and developing issues in equal employment law, which includes genetic discrimination. As this recent EEOC action signals a focus on GINA issues, employers are encouraged to ensure their policies related to employee medical information and examination comply with the Act.

2013 Medicare Trustees’ Report

DrinkerBiddle

On Friday, the Medicare Trustees released their annual report, which projects the solvency of the Medicare program.  According to the Trustees, the Medicare Part A program will remain solvent until 2026 — two years later than the trustees projected last year.  (Additional information on the 2012 Medicare Trustees’ Report is available here.)

The report presents a non-partisan snapshot of the state of the Medicare program, but also contains a wealth of interesting information about the overall Medicare program, such as:

  • In 2012, Medicare covered 50.7 million people – 42.1 million of whom were age 65 or older and 8.5 million of whom have disabilities.
  • In 2012 Medicare spent $574.2 billion and received $536.9 billion.  Since 2008, Medicare has been spending more than it is taking in, but is able to meet its financial obligations because it is using funds available in the trust fund (estimated to be $287.6 billion).
  • The Medicare Trustees project that Medicare will become insolvent in 2026, at which time Medicare will be spending more than it is receiving in revenues.  Interestingly, the Trustees project the Medicare program will continue to run a deficit until 2014, and between 2015 and 2014 the program will run a surplus, after which it will return to a deficit.
  • Most Medicare beneficiaries (about 73 percent) are enrolled in “traditional Medicare” – in other words, the sign up for Medicare Part A and B.  More than one quarter (27 percent) of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) – a private plans that deliver Medicare benefits.  In 2012, the Trustees estimated that 25 percent of beneficiaries were enrolled in MA.  This is interesting in part because there was concern that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) changes to the Medicare Advantage (MA) payment rates would result decreased enrollment in MA plans.  Today’s Trustees’ report suggests that concern is not being realized (at least in the short term).
  • Most Medicare beneficiaries are also enrolled in Medicare Part B, which primarily pays for services provided by physicians and other health care professionals.  Currently most beneficiaries pay $104.90 per month for their Part B premium.  Each year the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) calculates the amount of the Part B premium.  However, the Trustees project that the Part B premium will not increase next year.

It is also important to note that in making their projections, the Medicare Trustees have to assume current law.  Thus, if Congress were to make further changes – like addressing the impending SGR cuts (more information available here – then that would have an impact on the Trustees’ projections.

More information on the Medicare Trustees, including past reports, is available here.

 of

National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) 2013 Annual Meeting & Awards Luncheon – July 24 – 25, 2013

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming National Association of Women Lawyers (NAWL) 2013 Annual Meeting & Awards Luncheon.

 

NLR NAWL Annual Ad_250x250 v 2

 

Where: Waldorf Astoria New York Hotel in New York, New York

When: July 24 – 25 2013

Join lawyers from across the country at the historic Waldorf Astoria New York Hotel in New York, New York for NAWL’s signature event, the Annual Meeting & Awards Luncheon. At this event, NAWL will honor those who have made significant contributions to diversifying the legal profession as well as NAWL members who have devoted their time and efforts to NAWL. In addition, you will have the opportunity to participate in interesting and timely CLE programs along with networking events.

 

 

 

What’s New Out There? A Trade and Business Regulatory Update

Sheppard Mullin 2012Proposed DoD Rule: Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts (DFARS Case 2012-D-005)

On May 16, 2013, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) issued a proposed rule that would amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (“DFARS”) relating to the detection and avoidance of counterfeit parts, in partial implementation of the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2012 (Pub. L. 112-81) and the NDAA for FY 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). 78 Fed. Reg. 28780 (May 16, 2013). The proposed rule would impose new obligations for detecting and protecting against the inclusion of counterfeit parts in their products. Public comments in response to the proposed amendment are due by July 15, 2013.

The proposed rule, titled Detection and Avoidance of Counterfeit Electronic Parts (DFARS Case 2012-D-005), partially implements Section 818 of the NDAA for FY 2012 requiring the issuance of regulations addressing the responsibility of contractors (a) to detect and avoid the use or inclusion of counterfeit – or suspect counterfeit – electronic parts, (b) to use trusted suppliers, and (c) to report counterfeit and suspect counterfeit electronic parts. Pub. L. 112-81,§ 818(c). Section 818(c) also requires DoD to revise the DFARS to make unallowable the costs of re-work or other actions necessary to deal with the use or suspected use of counterfeit electronic parts. Id. The new rule also proposes the following in order to implement the requirements defined in Section 818.

  • Definitions: Adds definitions to DFARS 202.101 for the terms “counterfeit part,” “electronic part,” “legally authorized source,” and “suspect counterfeit part.”
  • Cost Principles and Procedures: Adds DFARS section 231.205-71, which would apply to contractors covered by the Cost Accounting Standards (“CAS”) who supply electronic parts, and would make unallowable the costs of counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts and the costs of rework or corrective action that may be required to remedy the use or inclusion of such parts. This section provides a narrow exception where (1) the contractor has an operational system to detect and avoid counterfeit parts that has been reviewed and approved by DoD pursuant to DFARS 244.303; (2) the counterfeit or suspect counterfeit electronic parts are government furnished property defined in FAR 45.101; and (3) the covered contractor provides timely notice to the Government.
  • Avoidance and Detection System: Requires contractors to establish and maintain an acceptable counterfeit avoidance detection system that addresses, at a minimum, the following areas: training personnel; inspection and testing; processes to abolish counterfeit parts proliferation; traceability of parts to suppliers; use and qualification of trusted suppliers; reporting and quarantining counterfeit and suspect counterfeit parts; systems to detect and avoid counterfeit electronic parts; and the flow down of avoidance and detection requirements to subcontractors.

Potential Impacts on Contractors and Subcontractors

Although the rule is designed constructively to combat the problem of counterfeit parts in the military supply chain, it imposes additional obligations and related liabilities on contractors and subcontractors alike.

  • The proposed rule shifts the burden of protecting against counterfeit electronic parts to contractors, thus increasing contractor costs and potential contractor liability in this area.
  • Under the proposed rule, contractors would need to take steps to establish avoidance and detection systems in order to monitor for and protect against potential counterfeit electronic parts, also increasing the financial and temporal impact on contractors.
  • Avoidance and detection system requirements will need to be flowed down to subcontractors, increasing subcontractors’ responsibility – and thus liability – for counterfeit parts.
  • The proposed rule would also make unallowable the costs incurred to remove and replace counterfeit parts, which could have a significant financial impact on contractors – even under cost type contracts.
  • As it currently stands, the narrow exception regarding the allowability of such costs applies only where the contractor meets all three requirements of the exception, which likely would be a rare occurrence.

Interim SBA Rule: Expansion of WOSB Program, RIN 3245-AG55

On May 7, 2013, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) issued an interim final rule implementing Section 1697 of the NDAA for FY 2013, removing the statutory dollar amount for contracts set aside for Women-Owned Small Business (“WOSB”) under the Women-Owned Small Business Program. 78 Fed. Reg. 26504 (May 7, 2013). Comments are due by June 6, 2013.

The new rule would amend SBA 127.503 to permit Contracting Officers (“COs”) to set aside contracts for WOSBs and Economically Disadvantaged WOSBs (“EDWOSBs”) at any dollar amount if there is a reasonable expectation of competition among WOSBs as follows: (1) in industries where WOSBs are underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement where two or more EDWOSBs will submit offers for the contract and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price; or (2) in industries where WOSBs are substantially underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement if two or more WOSBs will submit offers for the contract, and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price.

The new rule would amend SBA 127.503 to permit Contracting Officers (“COs”) to set aside contracts for WOSBs and Economically Disadvantaged WOSBs (“EDWOSBs”) at any dollar amount if there is a reasonable expectation of competition among WOSBs as follows: (1) in industries where WOSBs are underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement where two or more EDWOSBs will submit offers for the contract and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price; or (2) in industries where WOSBs are substantially underrepresented, the CO may set aside the procurement if two or more WOSBs will submit offers for the contract, and the CO finds that the contract will be awarded at a fair and reasonable price.

Article By:

 of

The Libor Scandal: What’s Next? Re: London Interbank Offered Rate

GT Law

The London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) is calculated daily by the British Banking Association (BBA) and published by Thomson Reuters. The rates are calculated by surveying the interbank borrowing costs of a panel of banks and averaging them to create an index of 15 separate Libor rates for different maturities (ranging from overnight to one year) and currencies. The Libor rate is used to calculate interest rates in an estimated $350 trillion worth of transactions worldwide.

The Libor Scandal

The surveyed banks are not required to provide actual borrowing costs. Rather, they are asked only for estimates of how much peer financial institutions would charge them to borrow on a given day. Because they are not required to substantiate their estimates, banks have been accused of Libor “fixing,” or manipulating the Libor rate by submitting estimates that are exaggeratedly higher or lower than their true borrowing costs. This scandal has resulted in the firing and even arrest of bank employees.

Libor’s reputation came under fire in June 2012 when Barclays PLC agreed to pay over $450 million to settle allegations that some traders fixed their reported rates to increase profits and make the bank appear healthier than it was during the financial crisis. In the wake of this settlement, investigative agencies around the world began to look deeper into Libor rate fixing, leading to a $750 million settlement by the Royal Bank of Scotland and a record-setting $1.5 billion settlement by UBS AG. To date, there have been over $2.5 billion in settlements, with many more investigations ongoing. One investment bank estimates that, in total, legal settlements could amount to as much as $35 billion by the time investigations conclude.

Replacing the Libor

In the wake of the Libor scandal, international and domestic agencies have advocated for its replacement. The BBA, the group responsible for setting Libor since the 1980s, voted to relinquish that authority, and a committee of the UK’s Financial Reporting Council is currently vetting bids from other independent agencies interested in administering the new rate.

The International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) Task Force on Benchmark Rates, led by the head of the UK Financial Services Authority Martin Wheatley and the US Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, released a report last month saying that the new system should be based on data from actual trades in order to restore creditability. Wheatley and Gensler agree on the need to create a transaction-based rate, but disagree on how to transition from Libor to the new system.

Wheatley proposes that: the estimate-based Libor system be kept in place while a new transaction based rate is introduced to run alongside it under a “dual-track” system (so as to avoid disrupting existing transactions), and that the decision as to if and when to abandon Libor be left to market participants as opposed to regulators.

Gensler proposes a wholesale replacement of Libor as soon as possible and cautions that its continued use undermines market integrity and threatens financial stability.

IOSCO is also pushing for a code of conduct that would hold banks to a higher standard of honesty in reporting and setting index rates, while other agencies, including the Financial Stability Board and the European Union, are working on the development of other potential solutions including stricter regulations and greater penalties for rate-fixing conduct.

The future of Libor is unclear, but it is certain that whomever is chosen to replace the BBA will be under immense pressure and scrutiny from the international financial community.

Recommendations

To stay prepared, parties to financial transactions should view existing and future contracts with an eye towards potential benchmark changes. Parties should perform contractual due diligence to establish the range of Libor definitions and benchmarks to which they are exposed. In addition, parties should review the fallback provisions dealing with change or discontinuance of Libor and other benchmark rates to understand the potential impact of such changes.

Going forward, parties should include fallback provisions in their contracts to allocate risk and set up alternatives to mitigate the uncertainty that could arise in the event of any changes to the Libor system or other relevant benchmarks.

Article By:

 of

Large Damages OK, but Injunctive Relief Too Broad Re: Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. Patent Infringement Case

McDermottLogo_2c_rgb

Addressing a finding of infringement that resulted in a lost-profits and reasonable royalty damages award of more than $300 million, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s ruling of infringement and damages, finding that sufficient evidence supported the findings.  Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., Case No. 12-1029 (Fed. Cir., May 1, 2013) (Rader, C.J.).

Versata sued SAP in 2007 over two patents that provide particularized pricing data based on factors such as the type of customer, type of product and size of the order.  Starting in the mid-1990s Versata sold its software, called Pricer, to many large companies, including as IBM, Lucent and Motorola.  SAP began offering software that provided customized pricing as part of its enterprise software in 1998.  As acknowledged by the Federal Circuit, when “SAP entered the market by bundling hierarchical pricing into its enterprise software, the market for Pricer disappeared.”

At a first trial, SAP was found to have infringed both patents, but the lower court later granted SAP judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement as to one of the patents and ordered a new trial on damages based on a change in governing law.  In a second trial, the jury awarded Versata $260 million in lost profits and $85 million in reasonable royalties.  Further, the district court permanently enjoined SAP from continuing to sell its customized pricing software. Predictably, SAP appealed.

SAP argued to the Federal Circuit that its accused products did not infringe and that, in any event,  the lost-profits and royalties damages, as well as the permanent injunction, should be set aside as improper for various reasons.  On the infringement issue, SAP argued that it could not infringe because its software is not capable of performing the necessary tasks (required by the claims) without additional computer instructions.  As for damages, SAP argued that the lost profits and reasonable royalty damages were improperly calculated as a matter of law and should be set aside.  SAP also argued that the injunction was overbroad in that it would prevent the company from offering maintenance and additional licenses to previously existing users.

As to the issue of infringement, the Federal Circuit found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict of infringement.  The Court noted that the record “clearly support the jury’s conclusion that SAP’s accused products infringe the asserted claims without modification or additional computer instructions.”

In considering SAP’s arguments on damages, the Federal Circuit rejected some of SAP’s arguments on lost profits damages noting that they should have been raised under a Daubert challenge.  The Court found that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s damages findings on lost-profits and reasonable royalty damages.

However, the Federal Circuit agreed that the permanent injunction as entered was overbroad and remanded the case to the district court for modification of the injunction.

Article By:

 of

Powered by
►
Necessary cookies enable essential site features like secure log-ins and consent preference adjustments. They do not store personal data.
None
►
Functional cookies support features like content sharing on social media, collecting feedback, and enabling third-party tools.
None
►
Analytical cookies track visitor interactions, providing insights on metrics like visitor count, bounce rate, and traffic sources.
None
►
Advertisement cookies deliver personalized ads based on your previous visits and analyze the effectiveness of ad campaigns.
None
Powered by