Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  25075-25081 displayed

1  3581 3582 3583 3584 3585  3627

---

Young Basile

Consultation on Patent Policy In Europe
On January 16, 2005, the European Commission announced that it has launched a public consultation on how future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide system of protection can best take account of stakeholders' needs. Stakeholders are invited to submit their contributions by 31 March 2006 which will form the basis of a Commission hearing to be organised in Brussels on 13 June 2006.

The consultation focuses on three major issues: the Community patent; how the current patent system in Europe could be improved; and possible areas for harmonisation. The Commission is also seeking views on what action could be taken while work on the Community patent is continuing, in particular within the framework of the existing European patent system, or by bringing national patent systems more closely in line with each other through either approximation of laws or mutual recognition of national patents. The legal framework for jurisdiction over patent disputes is an area of significant interest in this context.

According to Tobias Buck writing about the consultation document for the Financial Times on January 15 2006, "The absence of a functioning EU-wide patent regime is one of the biggest complaints of business leaders in Europe. According to a recent study commissioned by Brussels, the cost of registering patents across the EU typically varies between €37,500-€57,000 ($45,500-$69,200). By contrast, the cost of registering a US patent is about €10,000 – a factor often cited by Brussels officials as part of the explanation for the EU’s failure to improve its levels of innovation."

01-16-2006

---

Young Basile

Consultation on Patent Policy In Europe
On January 16, 2005, the European Commission announced that it has launched a public consultation on how future action in patent policy to create an EU-wide system of protection can best take account of stakeholders' needs. Stakeholders are invited to submit their contributions by 31 March 2006 which will form the basis of a Commission hearing to be organised in Brussels on 13 June 2006.

The consultation focuses on three major issues: the Community patent; how the current patent system in Europe could be improved; and possible areas for harmonisation. The Commission is also seeking views on what action could be taken while work on the Community patent is continuing, in particular within the framework of the existing European patent system, or by bringing national patent systems more closely in line with each other through either approximation of laws or mutual recognition of national patents. The legal framework for jurisdiction over patent disputes is an area of significant interest in this context.

According to Tobias Buck writing about the consultation document for the Financial Times on January 15 2006, "The absence of a functioning EU-wide patent regime is one of the biggest complaints of business leaders in Europe. According to a recent study commissioned by Brussels, the cost of registering patents across the EU typically varies between €37,500-€57,000 ($45,500-$69,200). By contrast, the cost of registering a US patent is about €10,000 – a factor often cited by Brussels officials as part of the explanation for the EU’s failure to improve its levels of innovation."

01-16-2006

---

Young Basile

Federal Circuit Proposes En Banc Rehearing Procedure Changes
On January 10, 2006, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposed a revision to its Internal Operating Procedure 14 on Petitions for Rehearing En Banc. Comments must be received by the close of business on January 31, 2006 with regard to the following three new sentences have proposed for additon:

During the en banc process, even after the normal time for panel action has
expired, but before a majority of the court has voted to take the case en banc,
the panel may reclaim jurisdiction over the petition for the purpose of
modifying the decision or opinion. Following such action, circulation to the
full court of the modified opinion, if precedential, would occur as usual,
within a new 8-day circulation period beginning to run again from the date of
the modification. If the panel changes the opinion or judgment, any party may
take whatever action is available to it in accordance with the provisions of
Fed. R. App. P. 35.
It's too bad that the complete set of IOPs are not already posted on the Federal Circuit's website. Nonetheless, Professor Hal Wegner has already commented that

"With cases such as LizardTech being denied en banc review because of the
difficulty of gaining seven votes, there had been comment within the patent
community about the difficulty of obtaining the votes necessary for en banc
review. With the anticipated senior status of one of the members of the court
two weeks from now, the majority is reduced to six members of the
court. Furthermore, under an amendment this past year to FRAP Rule 35(a),
if one of the judges is disqualified from voting whether to grant an en banc
rehearing, his or her vote does not count in making up a majority. Formerly, the
local court rule required seven of the twelve judges to affirmatively vote for
en banc rehearing, even if one or more of the judges was disqualified from
voting."

01-16-2006

---

Young Basile

TTAB Ex Parte Affirmance Rates for 2005
John Welch at the TTABlog has done a painstaking review of the TTAB's decisions for the past year which yielded the following approximate statistics regarding the Board's affirmance rate for ex parte refusals

Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion ---80% affirmed
Section 2(e)(1) mere descriptiveness ---86%
Genericness ---61%
Section 2(e)(4) surname --- 60%
He also uncovers the longest applied for mark at 182 words which the Board found did not function as a trademark.

01-16-2006

---

Young Basile

When to Use "Said" in Patent Claims
J. Douglas Miller at Small Business IP Protection and Managament has given his thoughts on the age-old question of just what is the "Proper Use of SAID in Patent Claims"

There are currently three different practices used in writing patent
claims. The first time an element or part is recited in a patent claim, it must
be preceded by the indefinite article “a” or “an” (although some exceptions
exist for “means” and plural recitations). For each repeated reference of an
element, one practice is to use “said” preceding the element and use “the” for
anything else. Alternatively, some practitioners precede everything with
“said” upon repetition thereof. A third, and somewhat more recent
practice, is to omit the use of “said”, and simply use “the” to precede
everything repeated.

I prefer to use "said" for only the first time that an element appears in any dependent claim, as a signal for the reader to look back to an earlier claim for the antecedent basis. Leave your comment below.

01-16-2006

---

Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & Howley L.L.P.

New Address and Name for Weston Hurd LLP
Since December 2005, the Cleveland-based law firm of Weston Hurd LLP has undergone some significant changes, namely a firm name change, a new address and a new logo.

The firm, which had been located at Terminal Tower for nearly 80 years, recently moved to The Tower at Erieview (new address: Weston Hurd LLP, The Tower at Erieview, 1301 East 9th Street, Suite 1900, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1862), where it signed a 15-year lease for 40,000 square feet on the 18th and 19th floors. In conjunction with the office move, the firm officially changed its name from Weston Hurd Fallon Paisley & Howley L.L.P. to its more common moniker, Weston Hurd LLP.

“For many years, we have been known informally as Weston Hurd, and with our move to The Tower at Erieview, we felt like this was the appropriate time to make the name change official,” stated Scott C. Smith, Weston Hurd’s managing partner. “Though our firm name has officially changed, we remain committed to the ideals of our founding partners, namely providing our clients with exceptional service. We have already embarked on this by designing our new office space with state-of-the-art technology which will improve the firm’s operational efficiency and allow us to continue delivering on Weston Hurd’s commitment to excellence for our clients.”

In addition to the office move and name change, Weston Hurd also changed its logo. “We took great care in designing a new logo that portrayed a more contemporary look to complement our new office space, but at the same time conveyed what our clients know us for – trust, stability, experience, tradition, reliability, and professionalism,” commented Scott C. Smith.

01-16-2006

---

Warner, Norcross & Judd, LLP

DHS Phone System Gives Away Secrets



When a landlord called the Illinois Department of Human Services and punched in 1-2-3-4, he was trying to circumvent the automated answering system and talk to a live person. What he got was a surprise. He found himself listening to confidential voicemail messages left for DHS employees by clients of the agency. The messages typically included the name, telephone number, and Social Security number of the client, along with an explanation of the client’s problem. "We were very surprised to learn of this,” said a spokesperson for the agency, “and took immediate steps to correct it, but it's not something that anyone at DHS did wrong. They didn't even know about it." According to the spokesperson, the vendor that provides the voicemail system has corrected the system glitch. “Social security data compromised,” http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/local/13632008.htm





States Struggle to Prepare for Real ID



Last year Congress enacted the Real ID Act, a statute that gave the states three years to begin issuing identification cards that meet federal standards. See “FAQ: How Real ID will affect you,” http://news.com.com/FAQ+How+Real+ID+will+affect+you/2100-1028_3-5697111.html Brian Bergstein, Associated Press Technology Writer, has written an article describing the challenges the states are facing in coming into compliance. In addition to setting standards for the issuance of state ID cards, the Act also requires the states to connect their record-keeping systems to national databases to catch duplicate applications, identify illegal immigrants, and share driving records. In addition, states are to check multiple databases to verify the accuracy of documents, such as birth certificates, that are submitted by license applicants. State officials say the cost of implementing these changes far exceeds the $100 million estimated by the Congressional Budget Office when the Act was being considered. Pennsylvania, alone, estimates its cost to be $85 million, with an additional $46 million annually to run the system. Virginia estimates that its initial costs will be $163 million, with additional ongoing costs of $63 million. “Real ID a nightmare for states,” http://www.thedesertsun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060115/NEWS10/601150328/1024

Current and past issues of In the News are now available online at www.wnj.com/privacynews.html


This message is provided by the Privacy and Information Security Taskforce at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP to advise you of recent developments in the law affecting privacy and data security. Because each business situation is different, this information is intended for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide legal advice on any specific facts and circumstances.

Warner Norcross & Judd LLP (www.wnj.com) is a full service law firm with four offices in Michigan. Our Privacy and Information Security Taskforce includes lawyers from across the firm’s practice areas who work together to help businesses ensure the security of their information systems and electronic data and to assist businesses who have experienced a data breach to limit their liabilities and prosecute hackers and data thieves. For information about the Privacy and Information Security Taskforce at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, e-mail Rodney Martin at rmartin@wnj.com or write him at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Suite 900, 111 Lyon Street NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503.

"Privacy and Information Security In the News" is a free publication of Warner Norcross & Judd LLP and its Privacy and Information Security Taskforce. You can choose to receive it either daily (usually by 9 a.m. each weekday) or weekly (usually by 9.a.m. on Friday morning). If you would like to receive this publication, please respond to this e-mail and let us know the frequency at which you would like to receive it. If there are others in your organization who should receive "In the News," either include their names and e-mail addresses in your message or forward this message to them so they can respond.

Should you ever wish to stop receiving "In the News," simply click here to send us an email message and we will remove your name from the subscription list. Rest assured that we will not sell your contact information or share it with anyone outside our firm.

Back issues of “In the News” are available online at www.wnj.com/privacynews.html.

01-16-2006

---

25383 matches |  25075-25081 displayed

1  3581 3582 3583 3584 3585  3627