SCOTUSblog: Debate sobre Derecho de patentes y control judicial

A Symposium on the Court and Patent Law
Wednesday, October 17th, 2007 10:46 am Ben Winograd

Earlier today, First Impressions, the online companion to the Michigan Law Review, published a symposium on “The Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, and Patent Law.” Following the Court’s three recent decisions in KSR v. Teleflex, Microsoft v. AT&T, and eBay v. MercExchange, the contributors explore whether the cases, considered together, represent an upheaval in patent law and redefinition of the relationship between the Court and the Federal Circuit.

University of Michigan Law Professor Rebecca S. Eisenberg contends that the Federal Circuit’s control over patent law remains little diminished by the Court’s recent foray into the patent jurisprudence. She argues that the most significant impact of KSR may be to embolden the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to reject more patent applications for obviousness without fear of reversal.

George Washington University Law Professor John F. Duffy argues that the Court’s reform of patent law substance and procedure was predictable and that KSR’s importance derives from the fact that it highlights many separate trends that are reshaping the patent system.

Patent litigator Harold C. Wegner believes that the Microsoft case revealed the balkanized nature of the Federal Circuit and that KSR, through which the Court created a unified message, will therefore be crucial to the Federal Circuit under future Chief Judge Randal Rader.

Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Eli Lilly & Co. Robert A. Armitage proposes that Congress adopt the National Academy of Sciences’ recommendations for reforming patent law rather than pursuing “anti-troll” objectives. He also defends the judiciary’s successful track record of responding to common criticisms of anti-trolls without legislative intervention.

Patent litigators Stephen G. Kunin and Andrew K. Beverina explain KSR’s effect on patent law and outline lessons it suggests for patent prosecution and litigation.

Wshington Post: Nueva ley protege a los periodistas

House Passes Bill to Protect Confidentiality of Reporters' Sources

By Elizabeth WilliamsonWashington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 17, 2007; Page A03
The House yesterday overwhelmingly passed first-ever federal protections for journalists pressured to reveal confidential sources, as lawmakers from both parties backed legislation that advocates for the news media have sought for a generation.

The bill, whose sponsors include conservative Republican Mike Pence (Ind.), House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), was the first reporter shield law to make it to a House vote in 30 years and more than 100 attempts. President Bush threatened to veto the bill, saying the protections it would afford "could severely frustrate -- and in some cases completely eviscerate -- the federal government's ability to investigate acts of terrorism and other threats to national security."

Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Sponsors and supporters of the Free Flow of Information Act say it would provide important federal safeguards against a growing trend toward calling journalists into court in order to unmask confidential sources. The District and 49 states have versions of the protections, but there are none in federal law.

The measure passed with a veto-proof vote of 398 to 21. The Senate version of the bill, introduced by Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 4 but has not been scheduled for a vote in the full Senate.

"What's a conservative like me doing passing legislation that would help reporters?" Pence, a former talk-radio host, asked in remarks on the floor. "As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government in real time is the freedom of the press.
"Without the promise of confidentiality, many important conduits of information about our government will be shut down," he said, adding that the bill would "put a stitch in what I believe is a tear in the fabric of the Bill of Rights."

The bill would protect news reporters, under most circumstances, from being legally compelled to reveal sources who have requested confidentiality. The protections would apply only to people who earn a significant portion of their livelihoods as journalists. They would not apply in criminal investigations or prosecutions of leaks of classified information that significantly harm national security, unless a judge ruled that the public interest outweighs those concerns. Journalists who are involved in or an eyewitness to a crime would not be protected.
An amendment adopted yesterday closed a potential loophole by excluding from protection anyone on a terrorism watch list or employed by a terrorist organization.

The Senate version of the bill would provide more limited protection of confidential-source information.

Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, opposed the measure, echoing Justice Department concerns that "this legislation will impede its efforts to conduct its investigations and prosecute criminals" and adding: "No one should be above the law, not even the press."

The measure attracted support from more than 50 news media organizations, including The Washington Post, which lobbied hard for the bill. In remarks on the floor, Democrats cited a list of investigative stories that would not have been possible without confidential sources, including Watergate, contracting abuses in Iraq and the mistreatment of veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

"This is a 'pinch me' day," said Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which was founded 37 years ago to push for a shield law.
Both the House and Senate bills "go out of their way to balance national security concerns, and go out of their way to identify who would be covered," she said.

The Wall Street Journal: Cómo proteger tus activos contra posibles demandas en EEUU

Protecting Your Assets in CaseYou Find Yourself in Court What if you're sued -- and lose?

This is one of our big fears. Over 80% of Americans believe there are too many lawsuits, according to a 2006 survey undertaken for the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform. An earlier survey, conducted for insurer Fireman's Fund, found that 67% of homeowners were concerned they might personally be sued.

Getting Going columnist Jonathan Clements responds to reader mail about how to hedge against the declining dollar. He advises diversifying by investing 30% of your portfolio in foreign mutual funds.

In truth, while certain occupations -- notably doctors and small-business owners -- are frequent legal targets, most of us are unlikely to face a personal lawsuit because of, say, a car accident or because a neighbor tumbles down our stairs.

Still, if it happens, it could be financially devastating. Here's a look at which of your assets would be at risk -- and how you can protect yourself.

• Losing it. Let's start with the good news: Under federal law, the value of your 401(k) plan or your traditional "defined benefit" pension should be protected from creditors. And if a hefty legal judgment forces you into bankruptcy, your rollover individual retirement account and up to $1 million in a regular IRA should also be protected.

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the end of the good news. With most assets, state law comes into play -- and legal protections are all over the map.

For instance, Florida and Texas residents enjoy ample protection for homes, annuities and life insurance. By contrast, residents of California, New Jersey and Pennsylvania are far less protected.

Because state laws vary so much, it's hard to generalize. But as a rule, the simpler the form of ownership, the more vulnerable the asset is.

FEELING VULNERABLE?

A lawsuit could derail your financial future.

• 86% of Americans say they're concerned about protecting their home and savings.
• But only 13% have an umbrella-liability insurance policy, which could cost $200 a year for $1 million of coverage.

Source: Hanover Insurance
Suppose you have a fat portfolio in your name in a regular taxable account. "The creditor is just going to grab it," says Gideon Rothschild, an attorney with Moses & Singer in New York. "There's no leverage there."

By contrast, if you have money in a variable annuity, life insurance, a limited partnership or a limited-liability company, creditors may settle for less, because these assets are harder to get at, says Chris Riser, an Athens, Ga., attorney and co-author of "Asset Protection: Concepts and Strategies for Protecting Your Wealth."

• Taking precautions. Getting nervous? Here are five ways to protect yourself.

Get a personal umbrella-liability insurance policy, which might cost $200 to $400 a year for $1 million of coverage. These policies provide extra protection, over and above the liability limits on your home and auto policies.

"That's the first line of defense," says David Handler, an attorney with Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago. "It's the insurance company's attorneys who are going to court. They're the ones with the first dollars on the hook."

• Max out retirement plans, starting with your 401(k). This is not only good investment advice, but also a good asset-protection strategy. "That's always the first thing I tell people to do," says Pittsburgh accountant and attorney James Lange. • Know your state's laws. Getting information is surprisingly difficult. A good place to start is apbook.com, the Web site for Mr. Riser's book. You may be able to dig up further information by sticking your state's name and the words "asset protection" into an Internet search engine.

Consider owning assets jointly with your spouse, especially if your state allows you to title your home or other assets as "tenants by the entirety." This latter form of ownership can provide solid protection against creditors.

One warning: Joint ownership can hurt other legal arrangements you've made. "It's easy to mess up estate plans and prenuptial agreements by retitling assets," cautions Holly Isdale, head of the wealth-advisory group at Lehman Brothers. "Check with your attorney before you do that."

The truly wealthy -- those with, say, $5 million or more in assets -- may want to talk to a lawyer about more sophisticated and more expensive techniques, such as setting up trusts, limited partnerships and limited-liability companies.