The Nassau Lawyer January 2012
 
New Patent Law to End U.S. First-To-Invent Patent System
By Caleb D. Wilkes
 
The America Invents Act signed into law by President Obama on September 16, 2011 includes new First-To-File patent provisions that in about a year and a half will end the traditional First-To-Invent patent system for U.S. patent rights. The text of the America Invents Act along with proponents of the new law assert that these changes will lead to greater certainty in the scope of patent protection for inventors and patent owners, resulting from simplification of patent office procedures and greater harmonization with foreign patent systems. In any event, the new First-To-File provisions introduce some uncertainties into the patent field, and patent experts and inventors are looking forward with interest to what the courts' interpretations of certain aspects of the new provisions will be. 2
 
Patent Reform – Overview of the New Requirements for Post-Grant Review and Inter Partes Review
By Susan Paiky
 
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA"), enacted on September 16, 2011, includes significant changes to the options available for post-grant review proceedings by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Post-grant proceedings, such as ex parte reexaminations, inter partes reexaminations (now called inter partes review), and the newly created post-grant review, are conducted through the USPTO to reevaluate already-issued patents, and typically lead to the confirmation, amendment, cancellation or withdrawal of claims in a patent.
 
Trouble With Trademarks How 'Betty' Made Her Mark
By James Fiorillo
 
Many general practice firms that have business clients will encounter trademark issues. Unlike patent prosecution and litigation, which requires an attorney to have special certification from the United States Patent and Tr/UserFiles/James Fiorillo.jpgademark Office ("USPTO"), any licensed attorney can provide trademark representation. Provid­ing trademark service can be a way for a general practitioner to add value for business clients and perhaps be a means to attract new clients. This article's focus is to provide a general practitioner with an understanding of what is required to provide trademark service to the client and what problems may be encountered throughout the representation.
 
When it Comes to Removal, Timing is Everything
By Kathryn C. Cole
 
An attorney representing a defendant who has been sued in state court, even though federal jurisdiction exists, will typically consider whether to remove the action to federal court. Sometimes, however, the decision to remove the case to federal court is made only after the expiration of the 30­-day removal deadline in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, a deadline that cannot be extended by consent or court order. Cook v. Traveler Cos., 904 F. Supp. 841, 842 (N.D. Ill. 1995). A recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, however, provides guidance as how to effectively extend the removal deadline in multi-defendant actions.
 
Threshold Question: Proving 'Serious Injury' in Motor Vehicle Cases After Perl
By Christopher J. DelliCarpini and John M. DelliCarpini
 
In Perl v. Meher, decided this November, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs in motor vehicle cases need not present contemporaneous quantitative evidence of disability to prove "serious injury."1 In other words, the treating physician need not have measured the plaintiff's range of motion to a precise degree in order to substantiate the severity of the injury. This reverses years of Second Department precedent and removes a significant obstacle to many plaintiffs' cases. But Perl also reminds us what still does not suffice to prove "serious injury," and offers guidance to plaintiffs and defendants litigating such cases.
 

Log In