Deals of the Year 2007
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Japan Patent & Trademark Update
TMI Associates Issue9 (March 2018) Japan Patent & Please note that there is one exception to this rule in a Invalidation rate of JPO patent invalidation trials FRAND case. We will discuss this exception – i.e. the “Abuse Trademark Update of Rights” theory - in a future issue of our newsletter. (2) Second reason : High patentee success rate The actual patentee success rate in patent infringement litigation in Japan is 43%, a similar rate to that seen in Delaware in 2016. This rate is calculated based on the number of lawsuits concluded from 2014 to 2016. The graph below shows the details of the judgments and settlements at the district court level. When discussing the patentee success rate, settlements should be considered because a significant number of cases (34%) reach settlement in Japan, as you can see in the graph below. Contents Specifically, while the invalidation rate at the JPO was as high should also be considered as an additional or an alternate Details of judgments and settlements as 70% over 10 years ago, it has continued to decrease and venue for patent disputes due to three not widely known 1. Patent Lawsuits in Japan has remained relatively stable at around 20 to 30% in the past reasons: (1) automatic injunctions, (2) reasonably high patentee – What You Need to Know several years. The stability of patent rights as you see above is success rate, and (3) reasonably low invalidation rate. In this to Resolve Cross–Border Patent Disputes an important factor when considering a venue for patent article, we would like to explain these three reasons in depth infringement litigation. -
Workshop Für Fortgeschrittene Studenten*, Referendare* Und Rechtsanwälte*
Workshop für fortgeschrittene Studenten*, Referendare* und Rechtsanwälte* Nehmen Sie an unserem interaktiven Workshop teil und erleben Sie, dass sich Großkanzlei und angenehme, lockere Arbeits- Teilnehmerstimmen zu atmosphäre nicht ausschließen! Lernen Sie die interessanten unseren bisherigen Aufgaben und Herausforderungen eines Wirtschaftsanwalts Workshops kennen und sprechen Sie mit Berufseinsteigern sowie erfahrenen Anwälten. „klare Darstellung und Einführung in bisher Wo und wann? unbekannte Bereiche“ Simmons & Simmons, Düsseldorf, Mittwoch, 7. November 2018, 11.00-18.00 Uhr mit anschließendem Abendprogramm „viel Interesse an den Bewerbern selbst“ Unsere Themen: • Verhandlungstraining durch einen Profi mit anschließender „gute Einbindung der Simulation Teilnehmer“ • Erwerb eines IT-Unternehmens aus gesellschaftsrechtlicher, arbeits- und IP-rechtlicher Sicht „die Fragen an das Publikum • Karriere-Speed Dating: Anwälte und Anwältinnen verschiedener und die Gelegenheit zu Senioritätsstufen stehen Ihnen für Ihre Karrierefragen zur Rückfragen waren sehr gut“ Verfügung „die Referenten haben Wenn Sie überdurchschnittliche Rechts- und Englischkenntnisse sowie Interesse für wirtschaftliche Zusammenhänge mitbringen, dann Interesse an den jeweiligen bewerben Sie sich bei uns. Gebieten wecken können“ Wir freuen uns auf Sie! „alle waren sehr offen“ Nähere Informationen finden Sie auf „schöne Kombination aus simmons-simmons.de/workshops Lernen und Anwenden neuer Materie“ Sollten Sie Fragen haben, stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Manuela Gillich -
Lex 100 P014-024 Winners.Qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14
Lex 100 p014-024 Winners.qxp 17/08/2007 15:08 Page 14 Job satisfaction How would you rate your overall job satisfaction? Lex 100 winners 1 Farrer & Co 9.10 2 Harbottle & Lewis LLP 9.00 Analysis = McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP 9.00 This important category is topped this year by Farrer & Co in what’s = Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP 9.00 been a highly impressive overall performance – the firm appears in every single one of our Lex 100 5 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP 8.75 Winners tables, often near the top, the first firm to do so. So why is this 6 Covington & Burling LLP 8.71 mid-sized London firm so popular with trainees? It certainly sounds a fun place 7 Latham & Watkins 8.67 to work and offers six seats in a wide variety of practice areas. There’s a strong 8 Ashfords 8.63 bond between current trainees, who praise the ‘great people and great mix of work’, ‘unique atmosphere’ and ‘sheer breadth of training = Stephens & Scown 8.63 opportunities’. Media boutique Harbottle & Lewis comes next. Trainees here feel they have ‘considerably 10 Bristows 8.60 better quality work than peers, better experience and more exposure’. Then, as last year, there’s a strong showing = Shoosmiths 8.60 by five US firms: McDermott Will & Emery, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Cleary Gottlieb, Covington & 12 Browne Jacobson LLP 8.58 Burling and Latham & Watkins. These firms have not been offering training contracts for that long in London and all have 13 Birketts 8.50 limited intakes. -
Roisin Higgins QC
Advocates Library, Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RF Telephone: 0131 226 2881 Facsimile : 0131 225 3642 DX ED 549302, Edinburgh 36, LP3 Edinburgh 10 Roisin Higgins QC Year of Call: 2000 Year of Silk: 2015 [email protected] 07739 639083 Professional Career to date Devil Masters: Ian Duguid QC, W James Wolffe QC. 2015: Year of silk 2000: Year of call September 1997 - September 1999:Solicitor, McGrigors (Edinburgh office), Commercial Litigation Department September 1995 - September 1997:Trainee Solicitor, Maclay Murray & Spens (Edinburgh and London offices). Training included experience in commercial litigation, commercial property, venture capital, and mergers and acquisitions. Education & Professional Qualifications Lord Reid Scholarship: (1999-2000) LLB (Hons), Dip LP, University of Glasgow (1990-1995) Areas of Expertise Commercial Contracts Commercial Property Construction and Engineering Intellectual Property Rights Media Law Professional Experience Roisin practised as a solicitor for two years before calling to the Bar in 2000. Since then, she has pursued a practice in commercial litigation and has developed a particular specialism in intellectual property law. In that sphere, she has significant experience in: (i) pharmaceutical and medical patent disputes; (ii) oil and gas patent disputes; (iii) parallel importation of trade marked goods; (iv) trade mark protection for large businesses; (v) protection of copyright and design rights; (vi) broadcasting rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988; and (vi) providing advice to football clubs and cricket and rugby associations in relation to trade mark rights, image rights and rights in footage of sporting events. She is a door tenant at 8 New Square, Lincoln's Inn. Recent Cases East Dunbartonshire Council v Bett Homes Ltd. -
Japan Patent & Trademark Update
TMI Associates Issue7 (July 2017) Japan Patent & The reason for this misconception could be that some in the below graph, in 70% of patent infringement lawsuits First, as shown in the below graph, the number of patent In sum, the decrease in the total number of patent applications by 2007; however, the Defendant continued using the articles discuss statistics regarding Japanese patent the judges did not make any decisions on the validity of the applications filed from the other IP5 countries does not show seems to have mostly come from the change in patent filing trademark “Eemax”. The Plaintiff sued the Defendant for Unfair Trademark Update lawsuits based only on those cases which have reached a patents. Further, in 43% of patent infringement lawsuits, such a decrease. Rather, the number of patent applications filed policy, i.e., shifting the focus from quantity to quality Competition asserting that the Defendant’s use of “Eemax” was judgment. The information on settled cases, as shown in even though the plaintiffs made invalidation arguments, the by U.S. entities has actually been increasing since 2013. of patents, and not as a result of any decrease in the impermissible given that it is a well-known trademark of the the above graph, was not announced before, and such judges still did not make any decisions with respect to validity. importance of obtaining patent protection in Japan. Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff had not registered the mark. In success rate could previously only be examined based on In other words, it is inappropriate to derive any significant Number of patent applications filed by foreign entities response, the Defendant filed a counterclaim asserting that the cases in which judgments were rendered. -
Trainee Handbook
THE QUEEN‟S UNIVERSITY OF BELFAST INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL LEGAL STUDIES Trainee Handbook What you need to know about the day-to-day life of the Institute Please note that this Handbook should be read in conjunction with the „on-line‟ information regarding the course. Appendices 1 Regulations for the Postgraduate Diploma in Professional Legal Studies. 2 On-line Legal Resources available to Institute trainees. 3 University Student Anti-Bullying and Harassment Policy. 4 IPLS Procedure for Maintenance and Enhancement of Standards and Quality. 5 Fire Safety. 6 (a) Bar Programme Specification (b) Solicitor Programme Specification 2011-2012 Edition 2 Introduction Dear trainee, On behalf of all our staff may I welcome you to the Institute of Professional Legal Studies. We are delighted to have you join us here and we hope that you will gain much from your time at the Institute. We are all committed to providing you with the very best in vocational legal training. This handbook is intended to help you maximise your time at the Institute by providing easy access to most of the information which you will need about our policies and procedures. Along with the handbook you will find a certificate stating that you have read the handbook and that you will abide by our policies. You will be expected to sign this certificate when you enrol. Throughout your time at the Institute it will be assumed that you know the contents of the handbook and you may find that you encounter considerable difficulties if you do not. We look forward to working with you. -
Evaluation of the First Year of PRIME
Evaluation of the first year of PRIME November 2012 Authors: Kelly Kettlewell, Clare Southcott, Gill Featherstone, Eleanor Stevens and Caroline Sharp, National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER). For all media enquiries please contact: Guy Nicholls, Allen & Overy. Telephone: 020 3088 4176 Email [email protected] Published in November 2012 by the National Foundation for Educational Research, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire SL1 2DQ www.nfer.ac.uk © National Foundation for Educational Research 2012 Registered Charity No. 313392 ISBN 978-1-908666-36-9 How to cite this publication: Kettlewell, K., Southcott, C., Featherstone, G., Stevens, E. and Sharp, C. (2012). Evaluation of the First Year of PRIME. Slough: NFER. Contents Executive summary i Key findings from the first year of PRIME i Conclusion ii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 What is PRIME? 2 1.2 Who is eligible for a placement through PRIME? 2 2. What proportion of students met the PRIME criteria? 4 3. Recruitment and engagement 5 3.1 Who were the students on PRIME placements? 5 3.2 Awareness and access to the legal profession 6 3.3 How did firms, brokers and schools begin working together on PRIME? 7 3.4 How did representatives use the PRIME criteria to select students? 8 4. PRIME placements: content and satisfaction 10 4.1 How satisfied were students with PRIME? 10 4.2 How did firms structure their placements? 12 4.3 What activities did firms offer students? 12 4.4 How were schools involved in PRIME placements? 14 5. Impact on students 16 5.1 What impact have the placements had on students’ skills development? 16 5.2 What impact have the placements had on students’ knowledge and understanding? 18 5.3 What impact did the placements have on students’ future plans? 19 6. -
Tokyo, Japan TMI ASSOCIATES Roppongi Hills Mori Tower Tokyo
III NextGen Leadership Program and Class V Induction June 5, 2016: Tokyo, Japan TMI ASSOCIATES Roppongi Hills Mori Tower Tokyo Courtesy of III Member Mitsue Aizawa CONFERENCE FACULTY CONFERENCE CO-CHAIRS Mitsue Aizawa E. Bruce Leonard TMI Associates, Tokyo Miller Thomson LLP, Toronto Donald S. Bernstein Maurice Fleming Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York NextGen Nomination Director Miller Thomson LLP, Toronto Alan Bloom Ernst & Young, London Franca Tibando NextGen Executive Director Prof. Hon. Samuel L. Bufford Miller Thomson LLP, Toronto Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA Shinchiro Abe Kasumigaseki International Law Office Thomas M. Gaa NextGen Tokyo Organizing Committee Bialson, Bergen & Schwab, Palo Alto Prof. Christoph Paulus Humboldt University, Berlin Hon. James M. Peck Morrison & Foerster LLP, New York Nominated Delegates Class V Ethan J. Birnberg Erin Broderick Lindquist & Vennum LLP Baker & McKenzie LLP 600 17th Street, Suite 1800 South 300 East Randolph Street, Suite 5000 Denver, CO 80202 USA Chicago, Illinois 60601 USA Tel: 303.454.0534 Tel: 312.861.8935 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Nominator Nominator Hon. Sidney B. Brooks Eberhard Nietzer United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Colorado Amtsgericht Heilbronn Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Margie Chan Dr. Jason Corbett Davis Polk & Wardwell Silk Legal Co., Ltd. Hong Kong Solicitors RSU Tower, 8th Floor, Suite 805 The Hong Kong Club Building 571 Sukhumvit Road, North Klongton 3A Chater Road, 18/F Hong Kong Watthana, Bangkok, Thailand 10110 Tel: +852 2533 3325 Tel: +66 (0)2107-2007 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Nominator Nominator Donald S. -
Discussion Paper on Heritable Securities: Pre-Default
(DISCUSSION PAPER No.168) Discussion Paper on Heritable Securities: Pre-default discussion paper Discussion Paper on Heritable Securities: Pre-default June 2019 DISCUSSION PAPER No 168 This Discussion Paper is published for comment and criticism and does not represent the final views of the Scottish Law Commission NOTES 1. Please note that information about this Discussion Paper, including copies of responses, may be made available in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. Any confidential response will be dealt with in accordance with the 2002 Act. We may also (i) publish responses on our website (either in full or in some other way such as re-formatted or summarised); and (ii) attribute comments and publish a list of respondents' names. 2. Where possible, we would prefer electronic submission of comments. A downloadable electronic response form for this paper as well as a general comments form are available on our website. Alternatively, our general email address is [email protected]. 3. Please note that all hyperlinks in this document were checked for accuracy at the time of final draft. 4. If you have any difficulty in reading this document, please contact us and we will do our best to assist. You may wish to note that the pdf version of this document available on our website has been tagged for accessibility. 5. © Crown copyright 2019 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email [email protected]. -
Europe - the Next Legal IT Frontier
The leader in legal technology news Issue 159 Europe - the next legal IT frontier Some UK legal IT suppliers are talking about breaking into the United States. Others are taking a crack at the Asia-Pacific market but if last week’s Lex Connect Europe event in Amsterdam was anything to go by, Continental Europe is the most promising marketplace of all. This view is echoed by Derk Kropholler, the vice president of sales at Solution 6 Europe, who predicts that the greatest growth in legal IT sales over the next couple of years will be in Continental Europe. Three factors are currently driving the European market. The first is the pending expansion of the EU, with law firms from the new accession states wanting to gear up so they can compete on an international basis. The second factor is a European-wide drift Buying trends - inertia away from local legacy systems vendors, to the big international rules OK ! suppliers - such as Elite and Solution 6 - who are perceived as the only ones who can provide the latest technologies. The Insider has completed its latest informal The third factor is the growing number of mid-sized European survey of legal IT buying trends. This commercial practices who believe they can carve a niche because confirms that the UK market is enjoying one the large UK and US-based multinational firms, who dominate of its busiest periods since the late 1990s but the top end of the market, do not really understand the region or there were some anomalous findings... the legal culture and are failing to provide the services European For example, our research found that businesses want. -
Report on Review of Contract Law: Formation, Interpretation, Remedies for Breach, and Penalty Clauses
(SCOT LAW COM No 252) Report on Review of Contract Law: Formation, Interpretation, Remedies for Breach, and Penalty Clauses report Report on Review of Contract Law: Formation, Interpretation, Remedies for Breach, and Penalty Clauses Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers under section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 March 2018 SCOT LAW COM No 252 SG/2018/34 The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 (as amended) for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline S Drummond David E L Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven. The Chief Executive of the Commission is Malcolm McMillan. Its offices are at 140 Causewayside, Edinburgh EH9 1PR. Tel: 0131 668 2131 Email: [email protected] Or via our website at https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/contact-us/ NOTES 1. Please note that all hyperlinks in this document were checked for accuracy at the time of final draft. 2. If you have any difficulty in reading this document, please contact us and we will do our best to assist. You may wish to note that the pdf version of this document available on our website has been tagged for accessibility. 3. © Crown copyright 2018 You may re-use this publication (excluding logos and any photographs) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3; or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU; or email [email protected]. -
Japan Patent & Trademark Update
TMI Associates Issue5 (November 2016) trademarks in Japan and in other countries, such as the fact Japan Patent & (1) Article 3-7 (2) of the Code of Civil of Procedure of Japan (Act of there being a considerable number of spectators at popular No. 109 of June 26, 1996, as amended) (the ”CCP”) as in effect world-wide events generally broadcasted and introduced today states that an agreement on the selection of international through television, magazines, and the Internet. jurisdiction “shall not become effective unless it is made with respect to an action based on certain legal relationships” and Trademark Update Next, the JPO Trial Board compared the trademark-in-question made in writing. and Red Bull’s trademarks and found both marks to share a common basic structure. Although the trademark-in-question (2) Since the MDSA was entered into in 2009, prior to the has larger horns which are colored in white, a larger head, amendments in 2011 to the CCP which introduced Article 3-7 and one forefoot, while Red Bull’s trademarks have two (2) (which became effective as of April 1, 2012) (the “2011 forefeet and comprise white lines to show the details of the Amendments”), it is not directly subject to the current Article body parts, the JPO Trial Board decided that (i) these 3-7 (2) in the CCP. differences did not surpass the basic structure that they have in common, and (ii) such differences do not have the (3) Thus, the validity of the relevant provision is to be examined impact of changing the visual impression we receive from under general principle (jori) by reference to the provisions of the overall structure of the two trademarks.