Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  25278-25284 displayed

1  3611 3612 3613 3614 3615  3627

---

Benesch Attorneys Law

Benesch Attorney Provides Legal Guidance to Contestants of Annual High School Rock Off
CLEVELAND, OHIO – January 18, 2006 – The law firm of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP is pleased to again be one of the sponsors of the Mountain Dew MDX High School Rock-Off, a month-long competition held in January at the Odeon concert club in Cleveland for aspiring rock bands. The annual Rock-Off is in its tenth year and is run by Belkin Productions, now Live Nation, Inc., a division of Clear Channel Corporation.
The firm’s sponsorship revolves around the contributions of Mark Avsec, an intellectual property attorney. Mr. Avsec has considerable experience negotiating agreements that involve music-related intellectual property. These include record label agreements, music publishing agreements, personal management agreements, and all aspects of music licensing.
“I have been supporting the Rock-Off almost since its inception, through my activity with the Volunteers Lawyers for the Arts and with Benesch. Our firm now provides each budding rock star with a legal primer and a collection of helpful resources in electronic form. The resource guide contains hyperlinks that connect to the web sites of the most salient industry resources, including the Copyright Office, ASCAP, BMI, and other staples. I use it myself,” said Avsec. He continued, “The goal is to make these young musicians aware that, while making music is fun, there are also a lot of business and legal aspects that they’d be wise to consider, even early in their careers.”
Avsec is also a professional musician, producer, and songwriter who has written, played on or produced hundreds of musical compositions and sound recordings for, among other artists, Bon Jovi (“She Don’t Know Me”), Donnie Iris (“Ah! Leah!” and “Love Is Like A Rock”), and Wild Cherry (“Play That Funky Music”). He is an American Music Award winner and has been nominated for two Grammy Awards.

01-06-2006

---

Carnahan, Evans, Cantwell & Brown, P.C.

Carnahan, Evans, Cantwell & Brown, P.C. Has Four Attorneys Named as Missouri/Kansas Super Lawyers
Springfield, Mo. - Carnahan, Evans, Cantwell & Brown, P.C. ("CECB") is pleased to announce that four of its attorneys, C. Bradford Cantwell, Clifford S. Brown, Joseph D. Sheppard III, and Thomas D. Peebles, were selected by their peers as Missouri-Kansas Super Lawyers by Law & Politics Magazine. The selection process included sending ballots to 25,000 active lawyers in Missouri and Kansas who have been practicing law for at least five years, as well as a panel review, a good-standing review, and an interview.
Attorneys Cantwell, Brown, Sheppard and Peebles are all Shareholders of the Firm, and practice in the areas of employee benefits/taxation; estate planning and trust administration; securities and intellectual property and business litigation dispute resolution; and estate planning/estate and trust administration matters, respectively.
CECB is a locally owned law firm formed in 1979 with emphasis in business transactions, estate planning, employee benefits, tax, litigation and dispute resolution, environmental, probate, real estate, banking, corporate, municipal franchise, and securities law. With offices in Springfield and Branson, Missouri, the firm currently has 17 attorneys and 27 other staff.

01-06-2006

---

Young Basile

Efforts to Acheive Bid Specifications Covered by Patent Not Illegal
In Fieldturf International, Inc., et al. v. Sprinturf, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.; January 5, 2006) the School District wanted to use a synthetic turf similar to a patented FieldTurf installation in a local park. The Request for Proposal ("RFP"), prepared by the Architect for the School District, specified: "Pro series soccer synthetic grass system manufactured by FieldTurf . . . or approved equal." When FieldTurf stated that it would enforce its patents against SportFields and the School District, the School District then rejected all of the bids, withdrew the RFP, and made further changes in the specifications in order to avoid the Field Turf patents. FieldTurf then sued SportFields for patent infringement based on its first bid, as an offer to sell under '271(a), and also charged SportFields with the torts of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

According to the Federal Circuit:
We conclude that the district court did not err in law, in considering the
nature of the SportFields product that was intended and understood to be the
product that would be installed, in holding that the bid was not an offer to
sell an infringing product. The School District representatives were aware that
SportFields' product differed from that of FieldTurf — indeed, FieldTurf
emphasized those differences in its communications to the School District. The
district court was not required to ignore these and other facts that showed that
SportFields intended to offer and to install its PerfecTurf product, which is
conceded not to literally infringe FieldTurf's patent claims. It is also
relevant that when FieldTurf complained to the School District that SportFields'
bid was for the FieldTurf patented product, the School District withdrew the RFP
entirely and rejected all bids, thus avoiding the accrual of damages for
infringement. The district court also interpreted the California statute to
include an "or equal" provision when the specification designated a patented
product. If this interpretation is correct (an issue we need not decide) then
there was another reason for finding noninfringement.
On the undisputed facts and considering all of the circumstances, we affirm the district court's ruling that SportFields' bid was not an infringing offer to sell the FieldTurf product.
. . . Although the district court was properly concerned with the conduct of the
competition, we must [also] conclude that the legal requirements of the commercial
torts were not met. For example, accepting the district court's premise that
FieldTurf encouraged the School District to place the FieldTurf product
specifications in the RFP, the record shows that the School District and the
Architect strongly supported this action, and wished to install the same turf
system that FieldTurf had installed in a local park. Efforts of commercial
entities to achieve specifications that favor their product are not illegal,
absent fraud or deception.
Although the district court found that FieldTurf had misled the School District with respect to "open bidding," the contract documents permitted product substitution and the School District was represented by professionals. We conclude that tortious interference by FieldTurf was not established as a matter of law, for it was not shown that FieldTurfs' conduct was "wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself," a criterion explained in Della Penna, 902 P.2d at 751.


01-05-2006

---

Young Basile

Efforts to Acheive Bid Specifications Covered by Patent Not Illegal
In Fieldturf International, Inc., et al. v. Sprinturf, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir.; January 5, 2006) the School District wanted to use a synthetic turf similar to a patented FieldTurf installation in a local park. The Request for Proposal ("RFP"), prepared by the Architect for the School District, specified: "Pro series soccer synthetic grass system manufactured by FieldTurf . . . or approved equal." When FieldTurf stated that it would enforce its patents against SportFields and the School District, the School District then rejected all of the bids, withdrew the RFP, and made further changes in the specifications in order to avoid the Field Turf patents. FieldTurf then sued SportFields for patent infringement based on its first bid, as an offer to sell under '271(a), and also charged SportFields with the torts of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

According to the Federal Circuit:

We conclude that the district court did not err in law, in considering the
nature of the SportFields product that was intended and understood to be the
product that would be installed, in holding that the bid was not an offer to
sell an infringing product. The School District representatives were aware that
SportFields' product differed from that of FieldTurf — indeed, FieldTurf
emphasized those differences in its communications to the School District. The
district court was not required to ignore these and other facts that showed that
SportFields intended to offer and to install its PerfecTurf product, which is
conceded not to literally infringe FieldTurf's patent claims. It is also
relevant that when FieldTurf complained to the School District that SportFields'
bid was for the FieldTurf patented product, the School District withdrew the RFP
entirely and rejected all bids, thus avoiding the accrual of damages for
infringement. The district court also interpreted the California statute to
include an "or equal" provision when the specification designated a patented
product. If this interpretation is correct (an issue we need not decide) then
there was another reason for finding noninfringement.

On the undisputed facts and considering all of the circumstances, we affirm the district court's ruling that SportFields' bid was not an infringing offer to sell the FieldTurf product.

. . . Although the district court was properly concerned with the conduct of the
competition, we must [also] conclude that the legal requirements of the commercial
torts were not met. For example, accepting the district court's premise that
FieldTurf encouraged the School District to place the FieldTurf product
specifications in the RFP, the record shows that the School District and the
Architect strongly supported this action, and wished to install the same turf
system that FieldTurf had installed in a local park. Efforts of commercial
entities to achieve specifications that favor their product are not illegal,
absent fraud or deception.

Although the district court found that FieldTurf had misled the School District with respect to "open bidding," the contract documents permitted product substitution and the School District was represented by professionals. We conclude that tortious interference by FieldTurf was not established as a matter of law, for it was not shown that FieldTurfs' conduct was "wrongful by some legal measure other than the fact of interference itself," a criterion explained in Della Penna, 902 P.2d at 751.




01-05-2006

---

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP

WHAFH Files Suit Against Engelhard Over Rejection of BASF's $4.9 Billion Offer
Engelhard Is Sued Over Rejection of BASF's $4.9 Billion Offer

2006-01-05 16:05 (New York)

By Thom Weidlich

Jan. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Engelhard Corp., a U.S. supplier of pollution-control devices, was sued by a shareholder who claims the company refused to consider BASF Corp.'s $4.9 billion hostile bid.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, was filed yesterday in state court in Trenton, New Jersey, by shareholder Hindy Silver. The complaint seeks to force Iselin, New Jersey-based Engelhard to negotiate with BASF or any company that offers shareholders a significant return on their investment.

Ludwigshafen, Germany-based BASF, the world's biggest chemical maker, announced its offer Jan. 3, the biggest global acquisition deal so far this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. BASF's bid was 23 percent above Engelhard's closing stock price on Dec. 30.

``Engelhard's board has refused to engage in good faith negotiations with BASF, has compelled BASF to pursue an acquisition via a tender offer and has refused to waive its supermajority voting provisions, thus further entrenching themselves at the expense of the Engelhard shareholders,'' the complaint said.

Engelhard spokesman Ted Lowen didn't return a phone call seeking comment.

The suit also seeks to have Engelhard drop a poison-pillprovision, said Gregory Nespole, one of Silver's lawyers at WolfHaldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York.

A poison pill is a method used by a board of directors to discourage a takeover bid, typically by offering shareholders new shares at discounted prices to dilute the suitor's stake in the target.

``We're concerned by the potential price that BASF isoffering and we're concerned with Engelhard's, to date,reluctance to negotiate in good faith and on a level playingfield,'' Nespole said.

The suit names as defendants Engelhard, company Chairman Barry W. Perry and five other directors.

Shares of Engelhard rose 47 cents to $38.23 at 4:00 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. BASF rose 68 cents to 63.62 euros in Frankfurt.

--Editor: Aarons.

To contact the reporter on this story: Thom Weidlich in New York at (1) (212) 617-2670 or tweidlich@bloomberg.net. To contact the editor responsible for this story: Patrick Oster at (1) (212) 617-4088 or poster@bloomberg.net.

01-05-2006

---

Wiley, Rein & Fielding, L.L.P.

Commerce Department Issues Favorable Preliminary Ruling for U.S. Diamond Sawblade Industry
Washington, DC—On December 20, 2005, the U.S. Department of Commerce found preliminarily that diamond sawblade imports from two countries—China and Korea—are being sold in the United States at less than fair value. The determination, made in response to a petition filed by WRF client, the Diamond Sawblade Manufacturers’ Coalition (DSMC), found a broad range of dumping margins, with a countrywide rate of 10.56% for Korea and an “All Others” China rate of 164.09%.

The ruling requires importers to post bonds for estimated dumping duties on diamond sawblades (and parts thereof) imported from these countries on or after the publication date of the government’s preliminary determination. The agency also found critical circumstances against certain Chinese producers due to their “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” as required by law. As a result, duties for imports from these companies may be applied retroactively up to 90 days before the publication date of the preliminary determination.

“This ruling confirms the prevalence of unfair pricing of imports from China and Korea,” said Daniel B. Pickard, a partner in Wiley Rein & Fielding’s International Trade Practice and counsel to the DSMC. “Imports from these countries surged into the United States at unprecedented volumes. Domestic producers and their workers have suffered enormously due to the dumping of diamond sawblades. Overall, the determination does not go far enough, however. We are confident that Commerce will find significantly higher dumping margins in its final determination.”

The U.S. Department of Commerce is scheduled to complete its investigation and issue final determinations in the cases in May 2006. The U.S. International Trade Commission has until June 2006 to complete an investigation of whether the dumped imports are causing material injury or threat of material injury to the U.S. industry.

01-05-2006

---

Weiss Berzowski Brady LLP

Nelson Appointed To Actec Business Planning Committee
Milwaukee, WI – January 5, 2006 - Randy S. Nelson, a partner in the Milwaukee and Delafield law firm of Weiss Berzowski Brady LLP, has been appointed to The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel (ACTEC) Business Planning Committee for the 2006-2007 College year.

ACTEC is a professional association of approximately 2,700 lawyers from throughout the United States who are skilled and experienced in the preparation of wills and trusts, estate planning, and probate procedure and administration.

Mr. Nelson’s practice includes estate planning, family business planning, advising service corporations and partnerships, tax planning, trust administration and probate. He is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (B.B.A., 1974) and Marquette University Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1977). He is also a Certified Public Accountant and an adjunct professor at Marquette University Law School, where he teaches estate planning. Mr. Nelson is the author of the chapter "Estate Planning for Owners of Closely Held Businesses" in Eckhardt’s Workbook for Wisconsin Estate Planners published by the State Bar of Wisconsin. He is a frequent speaker at continuing education courses for lawyers and CPAs on the subjects of estate planning and tax planning.

Mr. Nelson is listed in both The Best Lawyers in America and Who’s Who in American Law. He is a past Chairperson of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the State Bar of Wisconsin. He is a also a fellow of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, a member of the State Bar of Wisconsin, the Milwaukee and American Bar Associations, the Wisconsin and American Institutes of Certified Public Accountants, the Milwaukee Estate Counselors Forum, and the Milwaukee Estate Planning Council.

Weiss Berzowski Brady LLP has offices in downtown Milwaukee and Delafield, Wisconsin. It offers a wide array of legal services to both corporate and individual clients. The firm has substantial corporate law, tax, estate planning, employment law, litigation, and real estate practices. The firm’s website can be found at www.wbb-law.com.

01-05-2006

---

25383 matches |  25278-25284 displayed

1  3611 3612 3613 3614 3615  3627