The National Law Forum

Affordable Care Act Holding Insurers Accountable for Premium Hikes

Featured recently in the National Law Review an article by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services regarding Health Care Premium Hikes:

Health insurance premium increases in five states have been deemed “unreasonable” by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today.

After independent expert review, HHS determined that Trustmark Life Insurance Company has proposed unreasonable health insurance premium increases in five states—Alabama, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming. The excessive rate hikes would affect nearly 10,000 residents across these five states.

To make these determinations, HHS used its “rate review” authority from the Affordable Care Act (the health care law of 2010) to determine whether premium increases of over 10 percent are reasonable.

“Before the Affordable Care Act, consumers were in the dark about their health insurance premiums because there was no nationwide transparency or accountability,” said Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. “Now, insurance companies are required to disclose rate increases over 10 percent and justify these increases. It’s time for Trustmark to immediately rescind the rates, issue refunds to consumers or publicly explain their refusal to do so.”

In these five states, Trustmark has raised rates by 13 percent. For small businesses in Alabama and Arizona, when combined with other rate hikes made over the last 12 months, rates have increased by 27.2 percent and 18.1 percent, respectively. These increases were reviewed by independent experts to determine whether they are reasonable. In this case, HHS determined that the rate increases were unreasonable because the insurer would be spending a low percent of premium dollars on actual medical care and quality improvements, and because the justifications were based on unreasonable assumptions.

In addition to the review of rate increases, many states have the authority to reject unreasonable premium increases. Since the passage of the health care reform law, the number of states with this authority increased from 30 to 37, with several states extending existing “prior authority” to new markets.

Examples of how states have used this authority include:

In New Mexico, the state insurance division denied a request from Presbyterian Healthcare for a 9.7 percent rate hike, lowering it to 4.7 percent;
In Connecticut, the state stopped Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, the state’s largest insurer, from hiking rates by a proposed 12.9 percent, instead limiting it to a 3.9 percent increase;
In Oregon, the state denied a proposed 22.1 percent rate hike by Regence, limiting it to 12.8 percent.
In New York, the state denied rate increases from Emblem, Oxford, and Aetna that averaged 12.7 percent, instead holding them to an 8.2 percent increase.
In Rhode Island, the state denied rate hikes from United Healthcare of New England ranging from 18 to 20.1 percent, instead seeing them cut to 9.6 to 10.6 percent.
In Pennsylvania, the state held Highmark to rate hikes ranging from 4.9 to 8.3 percent, down from 9.9 percent.

Today’s announcement comes the same week that a report showed that health care spending has grown at remarkably low rates. According to an analysis done each year by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, U.S. health care spending experienced historically low rates of growth in 2009 and 2010. A recent study released by Mercer Consulting also showed a slow-down in the average employee health benefit cost to businesses.

The Affordable Care Act includes several policies, including rate review, to continue this slow growth. By fighting fraud, better coordinating care, preventing disease and illness before they happen and creating a new state-based insurance marketplace, it helps keep health care cost growth low.

For more information on the specific determinations made today, please visit http://companyprofiles.healthcare.gov/

ISS Updates Proxy Voting Guidelines for 2012

Recently found in the National Law Review an article by David A. Cifrino, PC, Thomas P. Conaghan, Andrew C. Liazos, Anne G. Plimpton and Heidi Steele of McDermott Will & Emery regarding Proxy Voting Guidelines:

ISS has released its annual update to its proxy voting guidelines for the 2012 proxy season. The update reflects changes in ISS’s pay-for-performance evaluation methodology, responses to say-on-pay votes and say-on-pay frequency votes and a number of social and environmental policies.

Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) has issued its annual update to its proxy voting guidelines, which have important implications for companies preparing for the 2012 proxy season. The updated policies apply to shareholder meetings held on or after February 1, 2012. The annual update reflects changes in ISS’s approach towards the evaluation of executive compensation, responses to say-on-pay votes and say-on-pay frequency votes and a number of new or updated social and environmental policies. The full text of the policy updates may be accessed here.

The 2012 updates require attention by issuers before the start of upcoming proxy season. An issuer that benefitted from a favorable ISS say-on-pay voting recommendation in 2011 may receive a negative ISS say-on-pay voting recommendation in 2012 despite no change to its corporate performance or executive pay program. At the same time, some issuers with total shareholder return performance less favorable than in 2011 may be able to secure a favorable ISS say-on-pay voting recommendation. To do so, it may be necessary to address additional corporate performance and executive pay matters for the first time in upcoming proxy statements. If an issuer secured less than seventy percent shareholder support for the 2011 say-on-pay vote, failure to address the issuer’s response to that vote consistent with the 2012 updates may result in an against or withhold voting recommendation by ISS with respect to compensation committee members (or, in egregious cases, the entire board).

Key changes reflected in the 2012 updates are summarized below.

Pay-for-Performance

One of the most important changes in the updated ISS proxy guidelines is the change in the manner of analyzing pay-for-performance to provide a “more robust view of the relationship between executive pay and performance” from both a short-term and long-term perspective. The updated ISS policy, as reflected below, is more detailed in its analysis.

	2011 ISS pay-for-performance analysis	2012 ISS pay-for-performance analysis
Peer Group Alignment:	Total shareholder return (TSR) over a one- and three-year period compared to a company’s peer group	The alignment of a company’s TSR and the CEO’s total pay with that of its peers over a one-year and three-year period
		CEO total pay as compared to the peer group median
CEO pay aligned with Total Shareholder Return:	The relationship between CEO pay and TSR over recent and long-term periods	The degree of alignment between the trend in CEO pay and the trend in annualized TSR over a five year period.

Under the revised guidelines, ISS will identify a company’s peer group as 14-24 companies selected based on market capitalization, revenue (or assets for financial firms) and Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS). In most, if not all, cases this group will be different than the peer group a company uses in its determination of executive compensation.

If ISS finds that pay and performance are “misaligned” based on the above new criteria, it will evaluate additional qualitative factors such as performance goals in relation to overall compensation, time-based versus performance equity awards, financial results of the company and any other relevant factors to determine whether the compensation practices support long-term value creation and are aligned with shareholder interests. Mitigating factors may be considered as well, such as the mix of performance- and non-performance-based pay, biennial grant practices, impact of a newly hired chief executive officer (CEO) and the rigor of performance programs.

The revised guidelines state that in general, a new CEO will not exempt the company from consideration under the analysis “as the compensation committee is also accountable when a company is compelled to significantly ‘overpay’ for new leadership due to prior poor performance.”

While the new policy provides more detailed criteria for ISS’s analysis, the new policy does little to provide predictability for companies in assessing where they will land on ISS’s evaluation spectrum for pay-for-performance. ISS will continue to evaluate pay-for-performance on a case-by-case basis. ISS expects to provide additional guidance on is pay-for-performance methodology in December 2011.

Compensation Committee Members and 2012 Say-on-Pay Vote

ISS’s 2012 Policy Survey indicates that shareholders expect explicit responses from companies describing measures to improve their pay practices where the prior year’s say-on-pay proposal failed to garner “meaningful support” (i.e. opposition vote greater than 30 percent). If a company’s 2011 say-on-pay proposal received less than 70 percent of the votes cast, ISS will recommend votes on a case-by-case basis for compensation committee members (and in extreme cases, for the full board) and management say-on-pay proposals.

ISS’s recommendation will take into account a company’s disclosure as to its response to the say-on-pay voting results, including substantive disclosure of company discussions with major institutional investors regarding the reasons behind the low levels of support and specific board actions taken to address the compensation practices that prompted the lack of support.

In the wake of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) and ever-increasing scrutiny on executive pay, ISS’s updated policy is a reflection of the growing demand for engagement by companies with their shareholders regarding compensation practices and policies. It is important to remember that this change in ISS policy is occurring at the same time as SEC proxy rules require issuers to disclose the extent to which the compensation committee has taken into account the say-on-pay voting results from the 2011 proxy season. It is prudent for issuers with relatively low levels of support from shareholders to take special care in disclosing the compensation committee’s response to the 2011 “say-on-pay” vote, particularly with respect to outreach efforts with investors. Issuers may also want to consider if any additional action by the compensation committee is appropriate prior to its 2012 proxy filing.

Company Response to Frequency of Say-on-Pay Votes

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules require companies to provide shareholders the opportunity to vote on the frequency with which advisory say-on-pay votes will be held. ISS will recommend voting against any incumbent director on a board that implemented a say-on-pay vote less frequently than the frequency which received the greatest number shareholder votes.

Proxy Access

Earlier this year, the SEC lifted its stay on its 2010 amendments to Securities Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, restricting the exclusion of proxy access bylaw proposals in proxy statements in 2012. Because the debate on proxy access is still fluid, ISS’s policy is intended to provide ISS with flexibility on proxy access proposal recommendations and does not provide guidance on specific elements of proposals that it would support. ISS will continue to recommend votes on these proposals on a case-by-case basis, but will focus on specific factors in its analysis, such as the percentage and duration thresholds for stock ownership, the maximum proportion of directors that shareholders may nominate each year and the method of determining which nominations will be included on the ballot if multiple shareholders submit nominations. ISS expects to issue additional guidance in January 2012 on this matter, based on its examination of the texts of specific proposals.

Risk Oversight for Directors

ISS notes that a number of failures in risk oversight by boards in recent years have given rise to greater emphasis on the board’s risk oversight function, and points to recent well publicized corporate scandals as examples of such failures. As a result, ISS revised its list of failures that could lead to a recommendation to vote against an incumbent director in an uncontested election to explicitly include risk oversight.

ISS’s criteria for determining whether a corporate disaster or scandal has a causal nexus to a board’s oversight function is unclear. Nevertheless, companies should ensure that their board’s risk oversight policies are up-to-date and clearly described in their public filings.

Social/Environmental Policy Updates

ISS also adopted or updated several social and environmental policies. These reflect the increased “traction” of shareholder initiatives seeking more transparency on corporate governance processes with respect to certain social and political issues. Among the new/updated policies are:

Political Spending– the updated ISS policy provides for a general recommendation to vote in favor of proposals that request disclosure of a company’s political contributions and trade association spending policies and activities rather than recommending votes on a case-by-case basis as had been the previous ISS policy.

Lobbying Activities –the updated ISS policy recommends a vote in favor of proposals relating to any effort by a company to inform or sway public opinion as opposed to recommendations only for formal political lobbying activities as had been the previous ISS policy.

Hydraulic Fracturing – a new policy regarding the natural gas extraction technique, typically called fracking, to vote in favor of proposals that request greater disclosure of a company’s fracking operations and measures taken to mitigate community and environmental risks. The recommendation will take into account several factors, including (i) the company’s disclosure compared to its peers and (ii) controversies, fines or litigation related to its fracking operations.

Workplace Safety – a new policy recommendation to vote in favor of proposals requesting workplace safety reports, including reports on accident risk reduction efforts.

Water Issues – a new policy to recommend, on a case-by-case basis, voting on proposals that request a company establish a new policy regarding or provide a report on water-related risks and concerns.

The 15th Annual ABA National Institute on the Gaming Law Minefield Feb 24-25 LasVegas

The 2011 Gaming Law Minefield program is specifically designed to provide in-depth coverage and discussion of the cutting-edge legal, regulatory, and ethical issues confronting both commercial and Native American gaming. Attorneys, compliance officers, Native American leaders, regulators, and legislators will all provide invaluable insights into current trends, opportunities and obstacles in the gaming industry. The program’s subject matter includes new gaming technology, increased IRS CTR and SAR compliance audit activity, Internet gaming, Native American gaming, breaking hot topics in the gaming industry, latest developments in dealing with problem gamblers, and a two-hour CLE-certified ethics program.

The Gaming Law Minefield program constitutes one of the most comprehensive, state-of-the-law gaming programs available. Program attendees have consistently rated the program as a valuable educational experience that provides participants with the opportunity to meet and talk with a wide variety of gaming law experts and leading state and Native American regulators.

Early Bird Registration ends January 24th. For More Information: Click Here:

Pepsi to Pay $3.13 Million & Made Major Policy Changes to Resolve EEOC Finding of Nationwide Hiring Discrimination Against African Americans

Recently the National Law Review published an article by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding Hiring Discrimination by Pepsi towards African-Americans:

Company’s Former Use of Criminal Background Checks Discriminated Based On Race, Agency Found

MINNEAPOLIS – Pepsi Beverages (Pepsi), formerly known as Pepsi Bottling Group, has agreed to pay $3.13 million and provide job offers and training to resolve a charge of race discrimination filed in the Minneapolis Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The monetary settlement will primarily be divided among black applicants for positions at Pepsi, with a portion of the sum being allocated for the administration of the claims process. Based on the investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the criminal background check policy formerly used by Pepsi discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC’s investigation revealed that more than 300 African Americans were adversely affected when Pepsi applied a criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants from permanent employment. Under Pepsi’s former policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense.

Pepsi’s former policy also denied employment to applicants from employment who had been arrested or convicted of certain minor offenses. The use of arrest and conviction records to deny employment can be illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it is not relevant for the job, because it can limit the employment opportunities of applicants or workers based on their race or ethnicity.

“The EEOC has long standing guidance and policy statements on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment,” said EEOC Chair Jacqueline A. Berrien. “I commend Pepsi’s willingness to re-examine its policy and modify it to ensure that unwarranted roadblocks to employment are removed.”

During the course of the EEOC’s investigation, Pepsi adopted a new criminal background check policy. In addition to the monetary relief, Pepsi will offer employment opportunities to victims of the former criminal background check policy who still want jobs at Pepsi and are qualified for the jobs for which they apply. The company will supply the EEOC with regular reports on its hiring practices under its new criminal background check policy. Pepsi will conduct Title VII training for its hiring personnel and all of its managers.

“When employers contemplate instituting a background check policy, the EEOC recommends that they take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence, and the nature of the job sought in order to be sure that the exclusion is important for the particular position. Such exclusions can create an adverse impact based on race in violation of Title VII,” said Julie Schmid, Acting Director of the EEOC’s Minneapolis Area Office. “We hope that employers with unnecessarily broad criminal background check policies take note of this agreement and reassess their policies to ensure compliance with Title VII.”

“We obtained significant financial relief for a large number of victims of discrimination, got them job opportunities that they were previously denied, and eradicated an unlawful barrier for future applicants,” said EEOC Chicago District Director John Rowe. “We are pleased that Pepsi chose to work with us to reach this conciliation agreement and that through our joint efforts, we have been able to bring about real change at Pepsi without resorting to litigation.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws against employment discrimination. The EEOC issued its first written policy guidance regarding the use of arrest and conviction records in employment in the 1980s. The Commission also considered this issue in 2008 and held a meeting on the use of arrest and conviction records in employment last summer. The EEOC is a member of the federal interagency Reentry Council, a Cabinet-level interagency group convened to examine all aspects of reentry of individuals with criminal records.

The Minneapolis Area Office is part of the EEOC’s Chicago District. The Chicago District is responsible for investigating charges of discrimination in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and North and South Dakota. Further information is available at www.eeoc.gov.

Inside Counsel presents the 12th Annual Super Conference in Chicago

National Law Review is pleased to bring you information about the upcoming 12th Annual Super Conference sponsored by Inside Counsel .

Reasons why you should Attend This Year’s Event:

Meet with Decision Makers: You’ll meet face-to-face with senior-level in-house counsel
Networking Opportunities: SuperConference offers several networking opportunities, including a cocktail reception, refreshment breaks, and a networking lunch.
Gain Industry Knowledge: You will hear the latest issues facing the industry today with your complimentary full-conference passes.

Who Should Attend – General Counsel and Other Senior Legal Executives from Top Companies Attend SuperConference:

Chief Legal Officers
General Counsel
Corporate Counsel
Associate General Counsel
CEOs
Senior Counsel
Corporate Compliance Officers

The 12th Annual IC SuperConference will be held at the NEW Radisson Blu Chicago.
Radisson Blu Aqua Hotel

221 N. Columbus Drive

Chicago, IL 60601

New Generic Top-Level Domain Names Available

An article featured recently in the National Law Review by Lori S. Meddings and Laura M. Konkel of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP discussed The Availability of Generic Top-Level Domain Names:

On June 20, 2011, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) approved the

implementation of a new generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) program that will allow businesses, organizations and other institutions to obtain their own domain name extensions, such as .library or .brand. Registration of a .brand gTLD is an attractive option for some brand owners, affording greater control over the brand’s online presence. Generic gTLDs, like .library, can be operated for the benefit of multiple organizations with an interest in the term or several companies within a particular industry.

Applications for new gTLDs will be accepted via an online interface from January 12, 2012 through April 12, 2012. There is $185,000 application fee and significant additional costs and obligations may be incurred during the application process, which is expected to take at least one year. Several companies are available to assist with the application process and other obligations of the gTLD owner should the application be approved, such as hosting and management of the gTLD. While ICANN plans to offer additional application periods in the future, the exact dates are not yet available and may end up being several years out.mentation of a new generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) program that will allow businesses, organizations and other institutions to obtain their own domain name extensions, such as .library or .brand. Registration of a .brand gTLD is an attractive option for some brand owners, affording greater control over the brand’s online presence. Generic gTLDs, like .library, can be operated for the benefit of multiple organizations with an interest in the term or several companies within a particular industry.

If you choose not to register a .brand gTLD, you can still monitor the program for potentially infringing applications and oppose those applications, for a fee, through ICANN’s dispute resolution service providers.

Detailed information about ICANN’s gTLD program, the application process and an applicant’s financial and legal commitments can be found here:http://newgtlds.icann.org.

8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference

The National Law Review is pleased to bring you information on the upcoming 8th Annual Asian ITechLaw Conference:

8th Consecutive event of the ITechLaw India series
A ringside view of Indian IT, Media and Telecom Law
Supported by several of the largest law firms and global associations
ITechLaw’s CyberSpaceCamp® to be held on February 22, 2012
Contemporary topics addressed by leading experts drawn from some of the best global law firms
Engaging debates with panelists from industry, regulatory authorities and in-house legal departments
Interactive sessions on issues affecting the largest IT bases in the world
Welcome Reception and Art Show, promoting emerging Indian artistes, allowing delegates to network with local corporates and invited guests
Gala Dinner and Networking Luncheons – ample networking opportunities to meet fellow professionals
I – Win Tea Meeting
In – House Counsel Breakfast Meeting
Exclusive golf outings on February 22 and 25, 2012
Make the trip a memorable experience by taking an excursion to exotic destinations across southern India, such as Mysore, Kerala and Tamil Nadu

“Imitation Two-Year Provisional” Option Extended Through 2012

The National Law Reviewrecently published an article by Jeffrey S. Whittle, Ryan B. McBeth, James E. Bradley, and Michael R. Samardzija, Ph.D. of Bracewell & Giuliani LLP regarding Provisional Patents:

As technology developers make New Year’s resolutions regarding patent filings for 2012, the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Patent Application” may be a tool worthy of consideration. The U.S. Patent Office (“Patent Office”) has extended, until the end of 2012, what it calls the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program.”¹ In essence, this program attempts to imitate what a true two-year provisional application would provide, but it sidesteps international priority risks and patent term issues and necessitates a few extra steps to achieve the “imitation.” Another caveat is that applicants must still file a non-provisional patent application and must still file internationally, if that protection is so desired, both within 12 months of filing a provisional application. The good news under this program, and what makes the program worthy of consideration, is that applicants now have an additional 12 months after filing the non-provisional from which to file any “missing parts,” including perhaps the most beneficial portion of the program—postponement of payment of search, examination, and any excess claims fees. For many entities, the postponement of these fees could be significant.

Traditional Provisional and Missing Parts Practice

Under traditional practice, the filing of a provisional patent application serves as a priority date place holder for an invention while inventors and practitioners have an opportunity to work out finer details of language for the claims. Important to this end is that in order to assert benefits to the priority filing date, a provisional application does not require a single claim, an oath or declaration, formally compliant drawings, or search and examination fees. As such it is also not subject to examination. After filing a provisional application, the more formal non-provisional patent application must be filed within 12 months to take advantage of the provisional application’s earlier priority date.

When filing a non-provisional application under traditional practice, if either a proper oath/declaration by an inventor, sufficient government filing fees, or compliant formal drawings are missing from the application, the Patent Office issues a Notice to File Missing Parts. An Applicant then has to respond to the Notice to File Missing Parts which, in effect, allows an update to a filed non-provisional application to append the “missing parts” not originally included. The Applicant has two months to respond and the option to respond later by paying time increasing, one-month extension fees for up to five months after the initial two month period.² The accumulation of progressively more expensive extension fees limits the use of traditional missing parts practice.

Achieving the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional”

Under the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program,” the traditional fee extendable two months turns into a non-extendable 12 months with a requirement to pay a rather minimal surcharge for the late submission of fees.³ Other requirements to file a non-provisional under the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program” include: (i) Applicant must submit a formal request⁴ with its non-provisional application to participate in the pilot program; (ii) the application must be an original non-provisional filed before December 31, 2012; (iii) the application must directly claim the benefit of the prior provisional application;⁵ and (iv) Applicant must not have filed a non-publication request. The non-provisional application must also contain at least one claim, at least one drawing, and be ready for publication. By allowing an Applicant to submit a non-provisional application in this manner, while still preserving the beneficial priority filing date of the provisional application, the “Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program” is effectively extending the useful life of a provisional patent application to two years from the filing date, thereby achieving the Patent Office desire of an “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Application.”

The time extension and fee deferral aspects of this program can be utilized from a business standpoint to postpone strategic decisions regarding the further pursuit of an application. For example, an entity may file a number of provisional patent applications in a specific technology space and later change strategic direction or select only one of the areas within the specific technology space to pursue. Under this program an Applicant may defer the search and examination fees, which total almost $900 and are typically due upon filing a non-provisional.⁶ This translates to a deferral of almost 70% of the fees for up to an additional 12 months. For large entities with large patent portfolios, these savings could be quite significant.

Risks and Limitations Associated with Using the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional”

Patent developers should be aware that entities utilizing the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional” may suffer diminishing patent term adjustments. Under this program, when the non-provisional application is filed, the Patent Office will still send a “Missing Parts Notice” to the Applicant. After three months of no response, any additional time taken by the Applicant may be subtracted from any patent term adjustment the Applicant may be eligible for at the end of the application process. Applicants should also keep in mind that the 18-month publication period will still be in effect from the earliest date to which priority benefit is sought,⁷ and this new program does nothing to defer international filing costs or requirements. For a filing outside the U.S. that claims priority to a U.S. provisional application, the Applicant has only 12 months from which to file a foreign or PCT application.⁸ For these reasons, patent developers interested in foreign filings should be aware of these risks and limitations of the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Program.”

Summary

By providing more time for technology developing entities to make strategic decisions on which patent applications to pursue, and by keeping money in the entities pockets all the while, the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Application” should provide reason to celebrate for many patent applicants as the New Year begins. Pending further evaluation by the Patent Office this temporary program may see permanent adoption. Should it be made permanent, the “Imitation Two-Year Provisional Application” also strategically could be significant as the Patent Office moves to a modified first-to-file system on March 16, 2013, shortly after this extended option period expires.⁹ For now though, this tool is available for use at least until the end of 2012.

_________________

¹ Extension of the Extended Missing Parts Pilot Program, 76 Fed. Reg. 78,246 (Dec. 16, 2011), available here.
² 37 CFR § 1.136.
³ 37 CFR § 1.16(f).
⁴ See PTO/SB/421, available here.
⁵ See, e.g., 35 U.S.C. § 119(e); 37 CFR § 1.78.
⁶ See USPTO Fee Schedule, available here. (Search and examination fees are deferrable under this program. Minimum fees due at filing: filing $380, search $620, examination $250. Note that small entities pay one-half this amount.)
⁷ 35 U.S.C. § 122(b)(1)(A).
⁸ See, e.g., Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property art. 4, as last revised at the Stockholm Revision Conference, July 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1583, 828 U.N.T.S. 303 (under the Paris Convention, adopted by 174 countries worldwide, a twelve-month priority period is mandated); Patent Cooperation Treaty art. 8, 28 UST 7645; TIAS 8733 (under the PCT the same period is mandated as that provided by the Paris Convention).
⁹ Leahy Smith America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29, Sec. 3, 125 Stat. 284 (2011).

7th Drug & Medical Device Litigation Forum, 7-8 Mar 2012, Philadelphia

The National Law Review is pleased to inform you of the 7th Drug & Medical Device Litigation Forum: Implementing Appropriate Litigation Readiness and Costs Management Policies That Ensure An Effective Defense at Trial

Event Date: 7-8 Mar 2012

Location: Philadelphia, PA, United States

Key conference topics

Mitigate and maintain costs associated with litigation

Gain judical insight on drug and medical litigation and its recent developments

Build better relationships with outside counsel in order to reduce the miscommunciation factor

Understand the limitations of marketing and advertising as it relates to emerging social media issues

Learn the latest on medical device product liability

Conference focus

Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers have faced a growing array of legal challenges this year. With the increase of mass tort litigation, as it relates to product liability, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers must be prepared to defend the increasingly sophisticated, well-funded and multi-jurisdictional product liability campaigns against their companies.

The 7^th Drug and Medical Device Litigation Conference will be a two-day, industry focused event specific to those within Drug & Medical Device Litigation, Product Liability and Regulatory Affairs in the Medical Device, Biotech and Pharmaceutical industries.

By attending this event, industry leaders will share best practices, strategies and tools on incorporating litigation readiness, utilizing cost efficient litigation strategies and accurately managing policies to ensure an effective defense at trial.

Attending This Event Will Enable You to:
1. Review the current landscape of drug and medical device litigation
2. Learn strategies in settlements and mass tort issues
3. Manage litigation expenses in order to effectively manage costs
4. Review recent case rulings, including the Mensing and Levine cases
5. Take a view from the bench: explore drug and medical device litigation
from a judicial point of view
6. Tackle product liability issues and challenges
7. Uncover the risks for drug and medical device companies when leveraging social media for marketing and advertising campaigns

With a one-track focus, the 7^th Drug and Medical Device Litigation Conference is a highly intensive, content-driven event that includes case studies, presentations and panel discussions over two full days.

This is not a trade show; our Drug and Medical Device Litigation conference series is targeted at a focused group of senior level leaders to maintain an intimate atmosphere for the delegates and speakers. Since we are not a vendor driven conference, the higher level focus allows delegates to network with their industry peers.

Testimonials:

“Great selection & breadth of speakers. Uniformly high quality of presentations. Intimate nature of meeting provided excellent opportunities for networking” – Abbott

“Great venue to learn and exchange best practices. More importantly how to leverage lesions learned from others.” – Baxter

“One of the best meetings I’ve attended. Excellent organization, topics and speakers. Overall extremely well done.” – Sanofi Aventis

marcusevans

Final health IT innovators win funding for cancer treatment apps

Recently posted in the National Law R eview an article by U.S. Department of Health & Human Services regarding Cancer Treatment Apps Funding for Health IT Innovators:

Innovative winners of an HHS public data and cancer challenge have created health IT applications that use public data

Ask Dory! – submitted by Chintan Patel, Ph.D.; Sharib Khan, M.D., M.A., M.P.H.; and Aamir Hussain of Applied Informatics LLC – helps patients find information about clinical trials for cancer and other diseases, integrating data from www.ClinicalTrials.gov and making use of an entropy-based, decision-tree algorithm. A functional demonstration of the application is available at http://Dory.trialx.com .and existing technology to help patients and health care professionals prevent, detect, diagnose and treat cancer. The two winners presented their submissions during a special symposium today at the Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences and were each awarded $20,000 by the Office for the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The two winning applications include:

My Cancer Genome – submitted by Mia Levy, Ph.D., M.D., of the Vanderbilt University Medical Center – provides therapeutic options based on the individual patient’s tumor gene mutations, making use of the NCI’s physician data query clinical trial registry data set and information on genes being evaluated in therapeutic clinical trials. The app is in operation at www.MyCancerGenome.org .

Information on the four semifinalist teams can be found at http://go.USA.gov/5DA.

With the support of the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health, ONC launched the “Using Public Data for Cancer Prevention and Control: From Innovation to Impact” challenge this summer in support of ONC’s Investing in Innovation (i2) program. The i2 program utilizes prizes and challenges to facilitate innovation and obtain solutions to intractable health IT problems. Aligned with the Obama administration’s innovation agenda, i2 is the first federal program to operate under the authority of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act.

“What makes these health IT challenges so powerful is their ability to catalyze the expertise and creativity of innovators both in and out of health care,” said Wil Yu, ONC’s special assistant for innovations. “We seek breakthrough solutions to nuanced issues; some are ready for the marketplace and some are prototypes, but all will have a great potential to benefit Americans. Ask Dory and My Cancer Genome are examples of results that innovation challenges can incentivize and deliver – we’re really excited to see their impact.”

For additional details on the “Using Public Data for Cancer Prevention and Control” challenge, visitwww.Health2Challenge.org/using-public-data-for-cancer-prevention-and-control-from-innovation-to-impact-2 .

For additional information about ONC or on the Investing in Innovation (i2) program, visit http://HealthIT.gov.