In the News Archive

If the patent owner can make the case that there is a factual issue about whether the invention is conventional, "that'll almost always get you out of summary judgment," said Ronald Abramson of Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC. "This opens up a big can of worms to avoid summary judgment."

Recent brain studies investigating CTE create uncertainty for defendants and their insurers

Criminals are opportunists. They like money. There’s a ton of money in college basketball. And, as evidenced by the federal criminal charges against 10 people, including four Division I NCAA men’s basketball assistant coaches and a senior executive at a major athletic apparel company, no one seems to keep a particularly close eye on that money — and pots of unsupervised money create attractive opportunities.

Erika Levin told Law360 that the decision is interesting because it shows the increasing attention being paid to "phase two" of arbitrations: the enforcement stage. That's important since arbitration awards were traditionally viewed as final and binding, with very little opportunity to overturn them once they're issued.

The decision is particularly interesting since Brazilian courts have traditionally been perceived to be very pro-arbitration and deferential, she said.

"You're starting to see more activity in phase two, the second act of the arbitration," she said. “Parties need to be mindful that multiple jurisdictions could be involved in an enforcement strategy, and that the results could differ drastically depending on the jurisdictions involved.”

Eric Lewis is quoted saying, “The ability to understand a case, price a case, look at a case honestly and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses becomes more important.”

Mr. Francos was quoted in the article saying, “If someone received a bribe, then someone had to have paid the bribe,” he said. “Companies should be well prepared [to be investigated].”  He continued to say, many Argentinian companies that are contracted by the state do not have established policies in terms of compliance and integrity, and will likely rush to put together new compliance programmes. Francos said “this shock could be good” to improve standards quickly.  “This [scenario] creates a problem for companies, but also an opportunity that will bring change to Argentina’s business culture,” he said.

Katherine Toomey was interviewed about the President’s latest travel ban proclamation and observed that the new ban might signal future “policy changes and reciprocal restrictions on U.S. travel.”  She added “I think that what we're seeing is uncertainty in the future about how many foreigners may be able to come over here for business purposes, whether for hiring or meetings or conferences and the extent to which that will have to be navigated by general counsels."

Waleed Nassar, an international disputes lawyer who represents two Saudi charities that are defendants in 9/11 litigation alongside Saudi Arabia, said, "the evidence, along with much of what has been submitted, is innuendo and circumstantial".

"The plaintiff's burden is to show something more direct, and that's really the only hope they have to have Saudi Arabia remain in the litigation," Nassar said. 

Woodsford Litigation Funding, one of the leading global third party funders, has announced a funding facility agreement with Lewis Baach which ensures the firm can offer clients an expedited, one-stop arrangement for the financing of high value litigation and arbitration.

Third-party funder Woodsford Litigation Funding said Wednesday it has reached a $20 million agreement with law firm Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC to provide it with financing to pursue litigation and arbitration worldwide on behalf of the firm's clients.

The deal, referred to as a funding facility agreement, will allow Lewis Baach to offer clients a financing arrangement to cover matters in any jurisdiction around the world in which the firm is prepared to offer contingency fee arrangements, Woodsford said. The deal will also cover situations...

“In our experience, the resources and the resolve that Woodsford brings to the equation, combined with a strong claim, a determined client, and a formidable legal team, makes the difference between justice delivered or denied,” Liston said.

"The ability to understand a case, price a case and look at a case honestly — to evaluate its strengths and weaknesses — becomes more important," said Eric Lewis of  Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC. "I spend more time on strategy than I did 10 to 15 years ago. I spend more time talking to clients as cases go along."

A little more than a year ago, the Pentagon lifted its ban on transgender people serving openly in the military, noted Elizabeth Marvin, an attorney with Lewis Baach in Washington, D.C. Reversing the decision "will undoubtedly adversely impact transgender service members who are currently serving openly under the Obama-era policy," she said. 

...

HR should be aware that Trump's decision "will impassion people on both sides of the issue. Managers need to be educated about transgender issues, and companies should adopt a zero-tolerance policy regarding harassment of transgender employees," Marvin said. "Work should be a place where transgender employees feel safe and are not judged."

In September 2016, the US Congress passed the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”) into law, overriding President Obama’s veto to narrow the scope of foreign sovereign immunity for terrorism related claims and expanding liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”) to now also include those who ‘aid, abet, or conspire’ with a foreign terrorist organisation. JASTA’s twin expansions of liability now make it easier to hook Middle Eastern countries and institutions into the web of costly US litigation. As President Obama himself recognised as a basis for his veto, ‘courts [can] potentially consider even minimal allegations…sufficient to open the door to litigation and wide-ranging discovery…’

Katherine Toomey was interviewed about renewed Chamber of Commerce efforts to obtain disclosure of third party funding arrangements for litigation.   She noted that the process of obtaining funding can be helpful “because oftentimes you are engaging in a real testing of the strength of the case. . .  You have people who are very knowledgeable and are interested in making sure they're making a good investment, asking you some very hard questions about the weakest parts of your case. So the cases that make it through are stronger for the process."

"There will surely be a rash of fringe (and truly offensive) trademark filings as a result of this decision," Ron Abramson, an IP attorney with Lewis Baach, told Ars in an e-mailed comment. "However, none of them will likely ever be major brands, thus the issue should not have great practical significance."

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided in Matal v. Tam that the federal government’s ban on offensive-trademark registrations violates the First Amendment. Here, attorneys tell Law360 why the decision is significant.

Ron Abramson, Lewis Baach PLLC.  “In today’s decision, there was no dissent from any side of the spectrum. The differences in the bases for the separate opinions of the justices
were nuanced, going to whether it was necessary to address additional questions such as whether registered trademarks represent government of private speech. One group said it was private speech — and thus highly protected — and a second group said it didn’t matter because this type of censorship would be prohibited under either standard. There will surely be a rash of fringe, and truly offensive, trademark filings as a result of this decision. However, none of them will likely ever be major brands, thus the issue should not have great practical significance.”

“This ruling will affect industries across the board,” said Ronald Abramson, a partner in the law firm of Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss PLLC.  The decision is important not just for its economic impact, but because of its effects on patent law. “This is the first time in a long time that an authoritative court has distinguished patent rights from contract rights and said that you can’t make up your own contract rights to affect patent rights,” said Abramson. “This breathes some new life into restraints on alienation, which have been ignored by the Federal Circuit for the last 25 years. It also opens up the door to antitrust and patent misuse, [two other legal limits on patentees] which have withered under the Federal Circuit.”

En Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss asesoran a clientes internacionales en litigios también internacionales, investigaciones y compliance. "Nuestra práctica trasciende las fronteras de los Estados Unidos permanentemente. En mi caso, me dedico a asesorar clientes latinoamericanos respecto de sus necesidades legales en los Estados Unidos", dice Cristian Francos, socio de la firma y su cara en la Argentina.

It would not be out of the ordinary, then, for a VEB official to have brief courtesy meetings with New York bankers about continuing business, though they would not be allowed to discuss new bond deals, said Aaron Wolfson, a partner at Lewis Baach who previously worked at JPMorgan and prosecuted banks for skirting sanctions.

Ron Abramson, partner at law firm Lewis Baach, said the decision represents “a complete and harsh slap down for the Federal Circuit, at long-last rejecting the Federal Circuit’s long questioned 1992 decision in Mallinckrodt v Medipart, which held that a contractual reservation of rights could overcome the rule of exhaustion by prior sale that applies to the patent property right.”

He added: “I am a bit surprised to see that the court also went eight to nothing for ‘full monte’ exhaustion—upholding not only domestic patent exhaustion as widely expected, but applying the same rule to foreign sales as well, despite the fact that foreign patents under which the latter sales occurred are entirely separate from any corresponding US patents.”

Lewis Baach’s Ron Abramson said the verdict represents a “complete and harsh slapdown” for the CAFC.  “At long-last”, the court rejected the CAFC’s “long questioned 1992 decision in Mallinckrodt v Medipart, which held that a contractual reservation of rights could overcome the rule of exhaustion by prior sale that applies to the patent property right,” he explained.  “The holding will loosen manufacturers’ control over ‘refillable’ products, as well as the ability to control importation of products sold abroad by threat of patent infringement.” He added, “It also removes a large cloud on commercial freedom of sale perpetuated by the Federal Circuit since its controversial Mallinckrodt decision 25 years ago.”

Manuel Varela, natural de Domaio, es abogado en un bufete en Washington que lleva la denuncia de la familia propietaria del banco, intervenido tras un informe del FinCEN americano

Ron Abramson, partner at Lewis Baach, explained its meaning: “Under this ruling, the controlling statute on patent venue is the narrower provision of Section 1400(b), whose meaning is not impacted by the broader provision in the general venue provisions of 35 USC 1391(c). “There will now be fewer places to bring a patent infringement lawsuit, to be sure.”

Eric Lewis of Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss writes: Good lawyers don't get stuck in boxes. They are problem solvers who bring judgment and experience to their clients' issues, whoever those clients may be. They try to prevent economic interests from affecting their service to clients. They earn trust. Satisfaction in the law can be, and should be, measured in more than one way.

On April 18, 2017, the International Islamic Relief Organization of Saudi Arabia (“IIROSA”) launched a major humanitarian distribution of food and other necessities in refugee camps in Juba, South Sudan to alleviate the plight of the South Sudanese affected by the famine. The distribution of the approximately $250,000 worth of much needed aid from IIROSA – including food items such as flour, sugar, corn, oil, and dried milk, as well as other basic goods – was made in conjunction with the South Sudanese Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and a local charity partner.

Asked whether there was any chance the bill could be enacted, Elizabeth Marvin, a Washington-based lawyer with Lewis Baach, told IBTimes UK: "there's a very slim chance... they certainly could enact it but it would be challenged and in light of the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v Hodges it would be struck down as unconstitutional."

"The federal courts are pretty jealous about their jurisdiction, and Article III standing is a brick
wall," said Ronald Abramson of Lewis Baach PLLC.

Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss represents Al Jazeera's Ahmad Zeidan and independent correspondent Bilal Kareem in an action challenging their inclusion on the United States’ “Kill List.”  Kate Toomey explains the case in an audio interview.

Elizabeth Marvin, a partner with Lewis Baach in Washington DC, told IBTimes UK: "In my practice, I came to learn pretty quickly that neither side really feels like they win usually when a case is settled".  According to Marvin, the repeal isn't doing anything for North Carolina's LGBT communities: "What the repeal did was basically return the state to pre-HB2."

The men’s lawyer, Jeffrey D. Robinson, said that they should be given the right to contest their inclusion on any list that could get them killed.  “Before the state applies its power in force to lead to my death, give me an opportunity to show that you got the wrong person,” said Mr. Robinson.

Jeff Robinson comments to Politico on new litigation filed by Lewis Baach on behalf of two journalists against the Trump administration.    The new suit contends that plaintiffs Zaidan and Kareem have been mistakenly included on the U.S. “kill list.” And must have a mechanism to challenge their status. "This is a very deliberate process that needs to give some access to people who deny they should be included," Robinson said.

“The transgender community is certainly in limbo, which is difficult because the community has been highlighted and sort of brought to the surface in recent months,” said Lewis Baach PLLC partner Elizabeth Marvin. “A lot of attention has been placed on them, and there are no specific protections for them.”

Beginning April 1, 2017, Lewis Baach will operate worldwide under the name Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss.  

However, Lewis Baach’s Ronald Abramson called the ruling ‘concerning’.  "In my view, by extending copyright protection to these designs, the court has broken a key limitation on copyright protection, and this will come back to haunt the courts in very troublesome
ways, not only in the fashion industry, but in other areas, such as architecture and computer
software, where design and functionality are often intertwined and the designs can be highly 'free form'.”  He added, “Businesses in those fields will now start asserting these ‘copyrights’ very aggressively, in ways that were never intended by the Copyright Act. Note also that the law also provides for design patents, a form of IP specifically created for designs of useful articles.  However, design patents have a relatively short term of 15 years. Copyrights, by contrast, typically have a 100-year term. The result here is very concerning.”

Ronald Abramson, an IP litigator with Lewis Baach PLLC, New York, was critical of the ruling,
saying the “Supreme Court just did what Congress would not: extend copyright protection to clothing designs.” Abramson told Bloomberg BNA in an email message that the ruling “has broken a key limitation on copyright protection, and this will come back to haunt the courts” in areas like architecture and computer software, “where design and functionality are often intertwined and the designs can be highly ‘free form.’”

Lewis Baach's Ron Abramson said the verdict illustrates SCOTUS’ “disinclination to have ‘special rules’ for patent law that widely diverge from the resolution of analogous questions in related legal fields.”  He added, “What the decision does do is cut way back on a defence that occasionally allows a patent infringement defendant to escape liability for damages. Due to the infrequency that this defence prevailed, I would say this decision will not have a monumental impact.”

The impact of the decision will be limited because laches was rarely asserted in patent cases and was even more rarely successful, said Ron Abramson, a partner with Lewis Baach.  "The decision was widely expected and again illustrates the Supreme Court’s disinclination to have `special rules' for patent law that widely diverge from the resolution of analogous questions in related legal fields," Abramson said in an e-mailed analysis.

Elizabeth Marvin, an attorney with Lewis Baach in Washington, D.C., said that whether Title IX encompasses gender identity discrimination "could potentially have an impact on employers, because it would require the [Suprerme] Court to consider whether Title IX's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex includes gender identity," should the issue again reach the Supreme Court. "A decision that 'sex' as used in Title IX encompasses gender identity would effectively expand the definition of 'sex' as used in other statutes, such as Title VII."

Lewis Baach’s Ron Abramson said SCOTUS had “cut off” an argument that could have expand US patent jurisdiction beyond reason.  “Everyone on the court agrees that there has to be more than one US component under the provision in question [to infringe]… the decision does straighten out an area where the lower court had pushed US law too far,” Abramson said.

Ron Abramson, partner at Lewis Baach, agreed with Dragseth that the ruling raises questions.  “I’m not sure I buy the fine points of the court’s statutory construction reasoning, and I see many open questions raised by this decision.  However, the big point here is that the Supreme Court has, quite properly in my view, cut off an argument that could have expanded US patent jurisdiction beyond reason by an exporter who did nothing more with respect to the US than supply a commodity component that is later used in making some further product abroad, where only the final product would have infringed had it
been made in the US.”

Critical of the judgement, Ron Abramson, partner at Lewis Baach, was unsure whether he “buys the fine points of the court’s statutory construction reasoning” and sees “many open questions raised by this decision.” [...]

Manuel Varela and Cristián Francos were interviewed by AUNO legal magazine on Litigation Funding

Manuel Varela y Cristián Francos fueron entrevistados por la revista legal AUNO respecto del financiamiento de litigios