Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  19741-19747 displayed

1  2821 2822 2823 2824 2825  3627

---

Holland & Hart, L.L.P.

Two Holland & Hart Attorneys Selected As Leading Trademark Lawyers
Holland & Hart LLP is pleased to announce that Jane Michaels and Scott Havlick were named leading trademark attorneys by Who's Who Legal USA for 2006. They are the only two attorneys listed in this category in Colorado.

Ms. Michaels specializes in intellectual property and commercial litigation, with an emphasis on telecommunications and computer industry cases. She has been a trial lawyer for 25 years and has won numerous complex jury trials and bench trials in business disputes, including trademark, trade secrets, patent, copyright, and technology cases. Ms. Michaels is a Fellow of The American College of Trial Lawyers and The International Society of Barristers. She has been listed in Best Lawyers in America every year for the past 15 years and received Chambers USA's no.1 ranking in Colorado for her experience in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

Mr. Havlick has specialized in non-patent intellectual property law at Holland & Hart since 1986. He co-chairs the firm’s Intellectual Property Group, IPH2, and heads the firm’s Trademark Practice. Mr. Havlick has co-authored a book entitled, ""U.S. Trademark Registration System: Theory and Practice,"" which was published in Japanese. He has made presentations in professional forums in both Europe and the United States on non-traditional trademark and trade dress protection. He specializes in all aspects of foreign and domestic trademark and domain name matters. He assists clients in selecting, searching, investigating, clearing, registering and properly using their trademarks. He is also listed in The International Who's Who of Business Lawyers.

08-22-2006

---

Wade, Clark & Mulcahy, Attorneys At Law

WCM Publishes Article in New York Law Journal
Senior Partner Dennis M. Wade and Partner David F. Tavella co-authored an article entitled The World After ""Pecker"": A Case of Unintended Consequences, 236 N.Y.L.J. 36 (2006). The article discusses the impact of a recent First Department decision that fundamentally changes the meaning of “Other Insurance” clauses. The case is certain to be the subject of much heated litigation in the months and years to come.

WCM believes that its attorneys’ obligations include a contribution to the development and discussion of the law. This is the sixth article published by WCM attorneys in the New York Law Journal in the last five years. If you would like a copy of any of the articles authored by WCM attorneys, please contact Shana Hughes.

08-22-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Taming the Rogue Municipality
For a decade, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has transformed the telecommunications landscape in the United States. Congress enacted the Act to ensure rapid and ubiquitous development of a complete national telecommunications infrastructure. For wireless facilities, the Act attempts to accomplish this goal in two main ways. First, Section 253 broadly preempts state or local regulations that prohibit or effectively prohibit telecommunications services. Second, for each wireless facilities application, Section 332 mandates that a decision denying any application be made in a reasonable time, be in writing, be supported by substantial evidence, be nondiscriminatory and not result in a prohibitive coverage gap.

Nonetheless, wireless carriers often face substantial impediments imposed by local governments, handcuffing carriers’ abilities to develop their networks rapidly. One way carriers have attempted to combat these challenges is to pursue money damages for the harm caused by a municipality’s actions. In the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision, however – City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams – some localities claim they no longer are subject to the threat of damages for a carrier’s increased costs and other monetary harm caused by an unlawful regulation or decision. This is incorrect.

As discussed below, Abrams foreclosed only one mechanism for recovering damages from municipalities that violate the Act. After Abrams, carriers still may be able to recover damages caused by the unlawful denial of an individual wireless application, and there are strong policy reasons in favor of such damages. Similarly, Abrams does nothing to prevent carriers from pursuing damages for harm caused by unlawful regulatory schemes, such as an ordinance that imposes burdensome and open-ended procedures that result in long application processing times with uncertain outcomes. There are compelling business reasons for a carrier to pursue such damages. And recent case law provides guidance as to the evidentiary showing a carrier must make to recover these damages.

Abrams foreclosed only one means to recover damages under the Act. Specifically, federal civil rights statutes – 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1988 – sometimes allow a party who is harmed as the result of a violation of the Constitution or a statute to recover money damages and attorneys’ fees for the harm caused by the unlawful state or local government action. Before Abrams, some courts allowed wireless carriers to recover damages under Section 1983 when a decision on an individual wireless application violated Section 332. Abrams concluded that a wireless carrier cannot use the civil rights statutes in this way. But Abrams stopped there, leaving untouched at least two other avenues for pursuing damages.

While foreclosing a Section 1983 damages claim based on a decision that violates Section 332, Abrams did not entirely rule out the possibility of a carrier recovering damages when a municipality unlawful denies an application. Abrams expressly did not decide whether damages could be recovered under Section 332, itself, for an unlawful decision. At least one court has noted that damages are, in fact, available directly under Section 332 for an unlawful decision. And the normal presumption is that, when a plaintiff has a right to bring a lawsuit for the violation of a statute, all traditional remedies are available to a successful plaintiff, including compensatory damages.

There are strong policy reasons for courts to allow such damages, and equally strong motivations for carriers to pursue them. Absent the threat of damages for a wrong decision, the principal “downside” to municipalities is that they may have to pay the (often fixed) cost of their city attorney defending the decision in court and, depending on the result, eventually may have to issue the requested permits. Local elected officials forced to decide between displeasing potentially vociferous citizenry or following the Act have strong motivations to deny applications. Allowing compensatory damages acts as a countervailing deterrent.

While foreclosing a civil rights damages claim for an unlawful decision on an individual application, Abrams says nothing about a carrier’s ability to recover damages for a successful challenge to an ordinance or statute that violates Section 253. As noted, Section 253 preempts any regulation that “may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.” Section 253 is “virtually absolute,” narrowly curtailing the level of discretionary review a locality can impose on telecommunications facilities applications. Although courts currently are split on the issue, courts before and after Abrams have allowed damages claims under the civil rights statutes for a challenge to a regulatory scheme that violates the Act.

Moreover, it is important to pursue damages vigorously when mounting a challenge to oppressive regulatory schemes. Without the threat of damages, the only remedy against an unlawful ordinance is an injunction against its enforcement. But any such injunction must be tailored narrowly. Absent a damages threat, creative jurisdictions can adopt ordinance after ordinance that, although differing slightly from a previous enjoined ordinance, still prohibits a carrier from effectively deploying its network. A carrier may therefore be forced to challenge ordinance after ordinance, while the processing time and costs to install its facilities do not change appreciably as the result of those challenges. Vigorous pursuit of damages will help deter rogue jurisdictions from pursuing these tactics.

Recent case law provides guidance regarding the evidence that should be developed to maximize the chances of damages recovery. In particular, one court recently denied a claim for damages against the City of New York based on a Section 253 challenge to the city’s wireless regulatory scheme. In refusing damages, the court emphasized three types of evidence that would have supported a damages claim, but that were lacking in that case: (1) evidence concerning the carrier’s “revenues, capitalization, profits, available capital, costs, budget, etc., or the potential customers or revenue” concerning the carrier’s potential operations within the city that were impaired by the city’s actions; (2) expert economic testimony to help explain the prohibitory nature of the offending ordinance; and (3) evidence showing the effect the accused ordinance had on the carrier’s application processing in terms of time and costs. Thus, in pursuing damages, a carrier should strive to develop an economic model that includes this type of specific data and which utilizes expert guidance to help quantify its harm.

After Abrams, there are still means by which carriers can seek recovery of damages for application decisions or regulatory schemes that violate the Act. It makes good business sense to utilize these means as a sword to deter overregulation. And understanding what a court needs to quantify damage awards will help a carrier maximize its recovery potential, and, at the same, will provide the maximum deterrent against unlawful decisions or regulations.

08-22-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

USCIS Expands Premium Processing Service
Does your company have foreign employees with currently pending I-140 immigrant visa petitions? If so, you may be interested to know that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recently announced an expansion of its Premium Processing Service. The expansion could significantly benefit your company and these workers. Beginning August 28, 2006, USCIS will accept requests for premium processing of two types of I-140 immigrant visa petitions within the third-preference employment-based category (EB-3) for professionals with a baccalaureate degree and skilled workers.

What is Premium Processing?

USCIS’ Premium Processing Service allows businesses to pay a $1,000 fee in exchange for processing of a petition within 15 calendar days of receipt. USCIS guarantees that within the 15-day period, it will issue either an approval notice, or where appropriate, a notice of intent to deny or a request for evidence. Premium processing has traditionally been available only for the processing of certain I-129 nonimmigrant visa petitions (H-1B, L, etc.). Employers will now be able to request premium processing for I-140 petitions involving EB-3 professionals, i.e., immigrant workers with bachelor's degrees who are members of the professions, and EB-3 Skilled Workers, i.e., immigrant workers capable of performing skilled labor requiring at least two years of education, training, or experience.

Premium processing is available at the initial time of filing a petition, but can also be requested at a later time. Beginning August 28, employers will be able to request premium processing on any new I-140 for EB-3 candidates and any pending I-140 petitions that qualify under the expanded service.

What are the Benefits of the Expanded Service?

Due to the severe backlog of immigrant visas in the EB-3 category, ""upgrading"" to premium processing may not be worthwhile if your foreign worker cannot adjust status for several years due to the unavailability of visa numbers, or if your foreign worker is not nearing his or her six-year H-1B limit.

Premium processing could be extremely beneficial, however, for a foreign worker in H-1B status nearing his six-year limit or currently on a post-sixth-year H-1B. There are two ways a foreign worker can obtain an extension of his or her H-1B visa beyond the typical six-year limit. If a foreign worker has a labor certification application or I-140 petition that has been pending for 365 days or more prior to the worker’s six-year limit, he or she is eligible for an H-1B extension in one-year increments.

With an approved I-140 petition, foreign workers are eligible for H-1B extensions beyond the six-year limit in three-year increments. Getting a three-year extension for these employees, as opposed to filing for multiple one-year extensions, could offer significant savings both in terms of time and cost.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like more information on the expanded Premium Processing Service and how it might affect your foreign workers. Whether premium processing is beneficial will depend on each employee’s particular case. Premium processing has not been made available for I-140 immigrant visa petitions in the first-preference (EB-1) and second-preference (EB-2) employment-based categories, but it is expected that USCIS will expand premium processing to include these categories in the future. We will continue to update you as more information becomes available.

08-22-2006

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

New Case Provides Help with Breaking into Government Contracts Competition
Procurement law (the Competition in Contracting Act of 1984) and regulations require that every sole-source award be preceded by a published synopsis of the proposed non-competitive procurement action. This requirement is designed to allow the government to benefit from competition that might be available, in order to obtain better services or prices. In order to be meaningful, that synopsis must reasonably describe the services to be acquired. In a recent case, M.D. Thompson Consulting, LLC, Comp.Gen.Dec.B-297616.2 (Feb. 14, 2006), the GAO sustained two protests against a DOE sole-source contract extension to CSC because it was not preceded by a synopsis that adequately described what DOE was going to procure. The synopsis used an overly generic description of the work (""highly technical and administrative support"") without any meaningful description of what CSC was really going to be doing for DOE. The synopsis was, in other words, a useless exercise.

Two qualified prospective competitors (Thompson Consulting and PMTech) put in their qualification statements in response to the synopsis (on a generic basis) and were summarily rejected from consideration by DOE, without receiving either a legitimate idea of what DOE was procuring, or reasons as to why they were not qualified to provide it. The frustrated possible competitors protested to GAO.

In sustaining the protests, the GAO found that the DOE description of the services it was buying included no useful information about the experience and abilities that potential sources really needed to have. The GAO determined that the DOE's deficient scope of work description failed to meet the minimum standards required. The GAO agreed with the protesters' arguments that the language of the agency synopsis not only discouraged, but may in fact, ""have been intended to discourage"" responses. The GAO recommended that the DOE redo its synopsis, obtain whatever qualification statements might be submitted by prospective competitors, and then reconsider whether a proper competition could be held.

The point for potential competitors is this: If an agency is bound and determined to continue working with an incumbent, then it may be very, very hard to bust the job open so as to allow competition. One possible way to start the process is to try to get some sort of meaningful synopsis published, so that a reasonable competition can be held. If the bureaucrats involved won't even do a synopsis, then it is probably going to be virtually impossible to force them. If the work is worth the marketing investment, a customer marketing campaign is the better way to go. One item in the marketing tool-kit might be this case — because of the embarrassment it brought on the DOE when it failed to provide a proper synopsis.

08-22-2006

---

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell Attorneys At Law

Dietzen Speaks On "Harassment In The Workplace
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell partner Leonard J. Dietzen, III recently spoke to the Directors of Volunteers Association (DOVA). The Tallahassee organization serves as a resource and networking tool for volunteer agencies.

The speech, titled “Harassment in the Workplace,” covered various employment laws and ways for employers to protect themselves from third party claims. Dietzen also discussed the Florida Volunteer Act and the safeguards it affords DOVA’s members. He concluded by stressing that training is needed to ensure better work and volunteer environments.

Dietzen concentrates his practice on the representation of private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law. He is a member of The Florida Bar.

08-22-2006

---

Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell Attorneys At Law

Dietzen And Bond Speak At 2006 Lorman Seminar
Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell partners Linda G. Bond and Leonard J. Dietzen, III recently spoke at the 2006 Lorman Education Services seminar in Tallahassee. This year’s seminar covered various topics related to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in Florida. Bond focused on various subjects pertaining to the FMLA, such as difficult eligibility issues and unique family relationships. Dietzen discussed issues associated with the ADA and Workers’ Compensation, FMLA, COBRA and HIPAA laws.

Both attorneys concentrate their practices on the representation of private and public sector employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, and are members of The Florida Bar.

08-22-2006

---

25383 matches |  19741-19747 displayed

1  2821 2822 2823 2824 2825  3627