Law Firm News

---

Law Firm News

Firm Name

News Title

News

News Date

25383 matches |  3459-3465 displayed

1  491 492 493 494 495  3627

---

Lewis and Roca LLP

Gonzales Joins Environmental, Natural Resources and Utilities Practice
Lewis and Roca LLP is proud to announce that Andrea L. Gonzales has joined the firm as an associate in the Environmental, Natural Resources and Utilities Practice Group.

Ms. Gonzales’ practice focuses on all aspects of environmental relations and related matters. She has experience in many water law issues, and her understanding of the historical context facing Arizona’s most valued resource allows her the ability to assist in many complex issues. Ms. Gonzales’ knowledge of the current EIS process in the upper basin, issues facing CAP water allocation within the state, and her ongoing involvement with the National Environmental Policy, allows for the ability to assist clients with many water law and regulatory conflicts.

Ms. Gonzales received her J.D. from Arizona State University College of Law (2004) and her B.A. from the University of California Davis, English (1999).

07-06-2007

---

Leonard, Street and Deinard

Leonard, Street and Deinard recognized by Chambers USA
Leonard, Street and Deinard is ranked by Chambers USA among Minnesota’s top firms in the 2007 edition of its Guide to America’s Leading Business Lawyers.

The firm was specifically recognized for its Business and Commercial Litigation, Real Estate, Labor and Employment, and Corporate/M&A practices.

In addition, Joe Finley and David Kelley, Real Estate; Todd Noteboom and Larry Field, Litigation; Tom Sanders and Moe Sherman, Corporate/M&A; and Ellen Sampson, Employment and Labor, each were singled out by the publication as top attorneys.

Each year, Chambers USA’s research staff conducts extensive interviews with clients and attorneys throughout Minnesota, and the findings are used to rank practice groups and individual attorneys. The qualities on which rankings are assessed include technical legal ability, professional conduct, client service, commercial awareness/astuteness, diligence, commitment and other qualities most valued by clients.

07-06-2007

---

McGuireWoods LLP

Federally-sponsored Research Agreements, Bayh-Dole Rights and Private Business Use of Tax-Exempt Bond Financed Facilities
The Internal Revenue Service released Revenue Procedure 2007-47 (“Rev. Proc. 2007-47”) regarding research activities conducted by state or local governmental entities (for example, a state university) or 501(c)(3) organizations (for example, a private college or university) (“Research Institutions”) pursuant to research agreements governed by the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980, as amended, 35 U.S.C. §200, et. seq. (2006) (the “Bayh-Dole Act”). Rev. Proc. 2007-47 sets out the conditions under which a research agreement does not result in private business use under Section 141(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). In addition, Rev. Proc. 2007 47 addresses whether a research agreement causes the modified private business use test in Section 145(a)(2)(B) of the Code to be met for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds.

Simultaneously with the promulgation of the private activity bond regulations in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Procedure 97-14 (“Rev. Proc. 97-14”) to provide specific guidance with respect to research agreements and private business use. Rev. Proc. 97-14 sets forth two safe harbors (the “Corporate-sponsored Research Safe Harbor” and the “Cooperative Research Safe Harbor”), and research agreements that meet the requirements of either the Corporate-sponsored Research Safe Harbor or the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor do not result in private business use for purposes of Section 141 of the Code.

Under the Corporate-sponsored Research Safe Harbor, research agreements relating to property used for basic research supported or sponsored by a sponsor will not result in private business use if any license or other use of the resulting technology by the sponsor is permitted only on the same terms as the recipient would permit the license or other use by any unrelated, non-sponsoring party (that is, the sponsor must pay a competitive price for its use), and the price paid for that use must be determined at the time the license or other resulting technology is available for use. Although the recipient need not permit persons other than the sponsor to use any license or other resulting technology, the price paid by the sponsor must be no less than the price that would be paid by any non-sponsoring party for those same rights. “Basic research,” for purposes of Section 141 of the Code, means “any original investigation for the advancement of scientific knowledge not having a specific objective.” The Corporate-sponsored Research Safe Harbor is not substantially modified by Rev. Proc. 2007-47.

Prior to modification by Rev. Proc. 2007-47, the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor provided that cooperative research arrangements will not result in private business use if (1) multiple unrelated sponsors agree to fund basic research to be performed by a Research Institution, (2) the research and the manner in which it is performed is determined by the Research Institution, (3) title to any patent or other product resulting from the research lies exclusively with the Research Institution, and (4) the sponsors are entitled to no more than a nonexclusive royalty-free license to use the product of the research.

Under the Bayh-Dole Act, the federal government and sponsoring federal agencies receive certain rights to inventions that result from federally funded research activities performed by non-sponsoring parties pursuant to contracts, grants or cooperative research agreements with the sponsoring federal agencies. The rights granted to the federal government and its agencies under the Bayh-Dole Act generally include, among others, nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable, paid-up licenses to use the products of federally-sponsored research and certain so-called “march-in rights” over licensing under limited circumstances. The term “march-in rights” refers to certain rights granted to the sponsoring federal agencies to take certain actions, including granting licenses to third parties to ensure public benefits from the dissemination and use of the results of federally-sponsored research in circumstances in which the original contractor or assignee has not taken, or is not expected to take within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve practical application of the product of that research. To accomplish the stated policies and objectives, the Bayh-Dole Act provides the federal government with a statutory mechanism to ensure that grant funds are used to benefit the public.

There were essentially two problems in applying the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor to federally-sponsored research agreements with Research Institutions: (1) the federal government constituted a single sponsor; and (2) the existence of the Bayh-Dole Act rights.

Rev. Proc. 2007-47 modifies and supersedes Rev. Proc. 97-14 by making changes to the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor. Under Rev. Proc. 2007-47, a research agreement relating to property used pursuant to an industry or federally-sponsored research arrangement meets the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor if the following requirements are met, taking into account the special rules set forth in Rev. Proc. 2007-47 in the case of federally-sponsored research:

1. a single sponsor agrees, or multiple sponsors agree, to fund basic research to be performed by a Research Institution;
2. the Research Institution determines the research to be performed and the manner in which it is to be performed (for example, selection of the personnel to perform the research);
3. title to any patent or other product incidentally resulting from the basic research lies exclusively with the Research Institution; and
4. the sponsor or sponsors are entitled to no more than a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to use the product of any of that research.

In applying the special rules under Rev. Proc. 2007-47 to federally-sponsored research, the rights of the federal government and its agencies mandated by the Bayh-Dole Act will not cause a research agreement to fail to meet the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor, provided that the requirements of the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor described in clauses (2) and (3) of the preceding paragraph are met, and the license granted to any party other than the Research Institution to use the product of the research is no more than a nonexclusive, royalty-free license.

Rev. Proc. 2007-47 will facilitate the application of the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor by (1) allowing Research Institutions to qualify for the Cooperative Research Safe Harbor even if there is only one sponsor funding the basic research to be performed by the Research Institution and (2) clarifying that the mere existence of the Bayh-Dole rights, including the existence of march-in rights, will not result in private business use.

07-06-2007

---

Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.

Fulbright Lawyers Receive Listings in the Asialaw Leading Lawyers 2007
Jeffrey Blount and Jie Zhang of Fulbright’s China and Asia-Pacific practices have been recognized in the just released Asialaw Leading Lawyers 2007: A Guide to Asia’s Finest Lawyers, a publication of Asia Law & Practice.

Citing the strong economies and investment activity of both China and India, the publication’s introduction also mentions Fulbright as one of the major global firms, particularly from the United States, that is active in the region.

Blount and Zhang are listed as leading lawyers in the General Corporate Practice section of the directory. The directory also notes that Blount is partner-in-charge of the Fulbright Hong Kong office, as well as chief representative and partner-in-charge of the Beijing office since its opening in November 2006. Senior associate Jie Zhang is also listed among leading lawyers in the M&A section of the directory.

07-06-2007

---

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Buchanan Litigation Team — Led by David Fawcett — Wins $219 Million for Wheeling-Pitt
A trial team led by Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney shareholder David Fawcett and including shareholder Gregory Krock, associate Ann Schiavone, and legal assistants Robert Devine and Kathleen Eichner, recently won a $219 million jury verdict on behalf of Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation. The dispute alleged fraud against Massey Coal Company and breach of contract on the part of one of its subsidiary coal sales companies, Central West Virginia Energy Company. The verdict included $119 million in compensatory damages and $100 million in punitive damages — $50 million against each defendant.

"The jury did the right thing," Fawcett said. "It sent a powerful message that companies in business arrangements cannot disregard their obligations, act with callous disregard of the rights of their customers, and then just claim that it's just the way you have to do business if you want to succeed."

"Wheeling-Pitt was totally reliant upon its coal supplier, Massey Energy, but when the price of coal went up in '04 and '05, Massey sold and shipped coal to new, higher-priced customers and shorted its long-time customer, Wheeling-Pitt. Then it claimed that it treated all customers fairly. That just wasn't the case. We showed the jury extensive documentation proving not only that this was false, but that Massey was working hard to fool Wheeling-Pitt and cover up its misconduct."

"Doing business in that type of manner should not be tolerated. The punitive awards were appropriate under the special circumstances of this case, where Massey knew that Wheeling-Pitt could go under due to Massey's disregard of its longtime customer in favor of short-term profits."

The jury verdict in favor of Wheeling-Pitt came after a five week trial in the Circuit Court for Brooke County, West Virginia.

The lawsuit was filed in April 2005, after Massey subsidiary Central West Virginia Energy Co. failed to deliver 104,000 tons of metallurgical grade coal per month to the steelmaker as required under a contract that extended to 2010. The complaint was amended more than a year later, based on extensive documents obtained from Massey in discovery. Wheeling-Pitt claimed that the defendants started diverting coal to higher-price customers, mainly export customers in Europe and Asia, while falsely blaming production and railroad problems for the shortfalls and knowing their actions could cause very substantial harm to Wheeling-Pitt.

About David Fawcett

David Fawcett's litigation experience involves pursuing business torts and handling business disputes of many kinds, including disputes arising out of mergers and acquisitions, software and licensing agreements, confidentiality agreements, employee benefit plans, patents, trademarks and covenants not to compete. Fawcett has handled many lawsuits through to settlement or final judgment in various states. As lead plaintiff's attorney in contingent fee litigation, he has secured favorable verdicts for his clients, including a verdict for $7.2 million and a verdict for $50 million. He has argued cases before federal and state trial and appellate courts across the country. He also has experience in negotiating and drafting commercial contracts.

07-06-2007

---

Ulmer & Berne LLP

Ken Zirm to lead the Firm’s associate development program.
Ulmer & Berne LLP, one of Ohio’s largest law firms, has hired Kenneth A. Zirm to lead the Firm’s associate development program. Zirm was formerly a partner with Cleveland law firm, Walter & Haverfield LLP.

“The hiring of Ken Zirm is an important step in demonstrating our Firm’s commitment to our associates, and to their professional development and career success at Ulmer & Berne,” said Kip Reader, the Firm’s managing partner.

According to Jim Cowan, the Firm’s executive director, Ken will do much more in this position than schedule training programs for associates. “The real value will result from Ken working directly with each associate in his or her professional and career development and ensuring that each associate is given optimal opportunities to grow and develop,” stated Cowan. “We say to each of the first-year associates, ‘Welcome to the Partnership’ because we expect every associate to fulfill his or her promise as a lawyer. The Director of Associate Development position was created to give each associate that optimum opportunity.”

07-06-2007

---

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

Schulte Roth & Zabel Client Ninestar Technology Granted International Trade Commission Review of Initial Determination in Seiko Epson Ink Cartridge Case
Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP (“SRZ”) is pleased to announce that the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) has agreed to review a final initial determination by an administrative law judge in the Seiko Epson ink cartridge investigation. SRZ had requested, on behalf of its client, Zhuhai, China-based Ninestar Technology Co., Ltd., that the commission review and reverse the determination, which found that Ninestar and 23 other companies violated Seiko Epson Corp.'s patents for ink
cartridges. The June 29 decision by the ITC is the first time it has agreed to review patent invalidity issues under the altered legal standard for patent obviousness set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision of KSR International v. Teleflex Inc.

Following the KSR International decision, Schulte Roth & Zabel filed a letter with the ITC outlining the significance of the KSR International decision and contending that the new standard set by the Supreme Court for patent obviousness compelled a review and warranted a reversal of the initial determination upholding the validity of various Seiko Epson patents. The new standard set by the Supreme Court is that “when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the
combination is obvious.” Accordingly, the Commission determined to review whether those portions of the administrative law judge's findings of invalidity for obviousness “are consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in KSR International…”

“We are pleased the ITC has decided to review the initial determination,” said Joel Lutzker, partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel and chair of the firm’s intellectual property department. “The new patent obviousness standards set by the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International v. Teleflex Inc. reflects a shift in jurisprudence for the benefit of industry competition and, ultimately, consumers themselves. Ninestar has fought long and hard in this case to protect the investment the company has made in independently developed technology and we look forward to full Commission review of the initial determination.”

Ninestar Technology manufactures and distributes printer consumables for brand name companies, including Epson, Canon, HP, Lexmark, Xerox and Brother. Products include replacement inkjet cartridges for desktop printers, laser toner cartridges, cartridges for large format printers, chip resetters, refill kits, ribbon, toner, CDR, floppy, photo paper , replacement inkjet cartridges and replacement laser toner cartridges.

07-05-2007

---

25383 matches |  3459-3465 displayed

1  491 492 493 494 495  3627