Posts from ‘October, 2008’

One-time adversaries in the landmark patent case, Morrison & Foerster’s Harold McElhinny and McKool Smith’s Samuel Baxter teamed up for a big win in a patent suit against Seoul-based Samsung Electronics. A 10-person jury in Marshall, Texas, returned a $59.3 million verdict Tuesday in favor of Tokyo-based Pioneer, which had alleged that Samsung infringed on two plasma screen patents. The case also signals a new trend of Japanese companies turning to U.S. courts for redress.

Pharmaceutical company Biopure’s defamation and trade libel case against a National Institutes of Health official for statements in an article co-authored for the raises concerns about the litigation risks of scientific discourse. The company claims that an article in the journal’s online edition falsely stated that use of the company’s Hemopure blood substitute product “is associated with significantly increased risk of death and myocardial infarction.”

The case against Ralph Cioffi and Matt Tannin, who were indicted for allegedly lying to investors about the state of two Bear Stearns hedge funds that collapsed in June 2007, has now spilled into civil court. Bank of America has filed suit against Cioffi, Tannin and a third Bear Stearns exec for hiding the funds’ poor health in order to draw the bank into a complicated $4 billion transaction in which mortgage-backed securities controlled by the funds were pooled to support the sale of other securities.

After the Heller Ehrman implosion, keeping track of where the firm’s former partners wound up has been like playing a game of Guess Who. And now the big question has been answered: Former firm Chairman Matthew Larrabee has joined Dechert’s San Francisco office as a senior trial lawyer.

Labor attorneys are warning employers that Halloween could get scary — in a legal way — if costumes, or a work party, get out of hand. French maid, naughty nurse, kitten, toga, Tarzan or construction worker costumes could set the stage for harassment, attorneys warn. Ghosts or goblins might offend someone’s religious beliefs, and political costumes could create tension. And someone in a great big pumpkin costume could trip at the company party and trigger a slip-and-fall claim.

When used wisely, Software as a Service — or cloud computing — applications make sense. But, according to Alan Cohen, wise use of SaaS starts with asking the right questions of vendors, and yourself. Just where is your data, and how secure is it? What happens when disaster strikes?

Overwhelmed with all the advice? The economic crisis is alarming enough. How can any common sense break through this racket? It takes discipline to take charge of your career when so many people are freaking out. Panic won’t help, but neither will maintaining the status quo while the legal world morphs all around you. If you are an associate with a stable job, don’t take it for granted. Do all you can to solidify your position in your current firm, says consultant Gail Cutter.

Four lawyers are set to guide Thelen’s wind-down. The three members of Thelen’s dissolution committee are David Graybeal, Douglas Davidson and Thomas Hill. The firm has also hired as outside counsel Peter Gilhuly, the Latham & Watkins bankruptcy partner who advised Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison on its dissolution half a decade ago. Some former Thelen partners are voicing frustration over the inclusion of Hill — the managing partner of operations at Thelen — as a member of the wind-down committee.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report Wednesday suggesting that FDA officials made changes to federal prescription labeling rules to follow a Bush administration policy of protecting drug companies. The report’s release comes as the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments Monday in the landmark pre-emption case. Former FDA Chief Counsel Sheldon Bradshaw says the timing of the report’s release is no accident, and its “sole purpose is to sway the Court.”

The Federal Circuit on Thursday issued a rare full-court opinion in a closely watched case, ruling 9-3 that business methods or processes cannot be patented unless they are tied to a machine or involve a physical transformation. The case could impact the explosive growth in such patents. The three judges who dissented didn’t agree with each other either. One judge argued that the majority did not go far enough in restricting business-method patents and the other two argued for a more lenient standard.