Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (256525)	6/25/2010 4:01:25 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 306849

Salesforce sues Microsoft back, enlists David Boies in new battle techflash.com

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (256525)	7/14/2010 6:08:47 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 306849

Sign of the Times: Even Cravath Has to Sell Itself _____________________________________________________________ By Zach Lowe The American Lawyer 07-14-2010 Cravath, Swaine & Moore, a firm so synonymous with gold-standard work that it probably has never had to market itself, has plans to beef up its marketing department over the next few months, according to three sources familiar with the matter. The firm may hire as many as four new members of a marketing team that will do everything from finding work assignments that fit within the firm's history to pitching its work to magazines, such as The American Lawyer, that rank law firms using various metrics, the three sources say. A Cravath spokeswoman did not respond to several messages seeking comment. One of the sources cautions that the additions will not necessarily represent a sea change for the firm. This source says two of the new hires -- including one senior marketing job -- are meant to fill existing slots that are now empty. The other two positions -- should they be filled -- would be new. The same source stresses that the department's focus is not on traditional marketing -- either to clients or the press -- but rather on developing research capabilities that allow partners to know almost instantly Cravath's history with particular clients seeking work, potential conflicts that work might create and other important information. The two other sources say that the positions do call for some traditional marketing and press duties. Exact salary details and job descriptions for the new positions could not be learned. Industry experts expressed some surprise at the news but also said it is essential for every firm -- even Cravath -- to market itself in a climate in which general counsel are looking to save whenever possible. "This is just something that every firm has to do now," says Ward Bower, a consultant at Altman Weil (Bower does not work with Cravath).

To: Cactus Jack who wrote (256525)	7/20/2010 4:48:12 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 306849

Medical Device Company Sues McDermott, Alleging Missed Patent Deadlines By Sheri Qualters The National Law Journal July 20, 2010 Medical device maker Nomir Medical Technologies Inc. is suing McDermott Will & Emery and three of its former lawyers in Massachusetts state court for $143 million for missing four key patent filing deadlines. The medical laser maker filed its case, Nomir Medical Technologies Inc. v. McDermott, Will & Emery, in Suffolk County Superior Court in Massachusetts on July 1. The case was transferred to the Massachusetts Superior Court's business litigation session on July 13. Nomir's legal claims include negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and violations of the Massachusetts consumer protection law. The company is asking the court to award lost profits, multiple damages, plus attorney fees and costs. Nomir is also suing three former McDermott lawyers: Mark Lappin and G. Matthew McCloskey of Massachusetts and Simona Levi-Minzi of Florida. Nomir claims it retained McDermott in 2004, which charged it more than $1.1 million in intellectual property legal fees from 2005 through 2008. According to Nomir's lawsuit, the applications "represented clinically proven breakthrough technology of tremendous value for the treatment of infectious disease, and the plaintiff's core technology." In the lawsuit's first example, Levi-Minzi initially filed Nomir's patent application for a method of using laser technology to target biofilm -- micro-organisms that adhere to each other -- as a treatment for peridontal disease, at Lappin's request in October 2004. Because of a faulty docketing system, the lawsuit alleges, the firm missed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's January 2005 notice to provide additional information. The PTO declared the patent abandoned in March 2005. In July 2007, the suit alleges, McCloskey learned the application was abandoned. Nomir claims the firm waited 41 days to notify it of the problem. Meanwhile, Nomir claims that it relied on the patent technology for "various contemplated business and financing transactions." The company claims that investors delayed a $1.4 million payment scheduled for Sept. 30, 2007, until the patent was revived. The company also said it was forced to suspend a clinical trial of the technology and postpone additional fundraising activities. Nomir hired a new law firm, and the patent was eventually issued in September 2009, but the company claims the unintended abandonment placed it at a time disadvantage in the race to offer periodontal disease treatments. The company also claims it delayed research related to using the technology for wound decontamination. Overall, the company claims it lost $2 million to $3 million in financing, more than 2 1/2 years in the life of the patent, $600,000 in actual damages and estimated lost revenue of $22.4 million through 2008. Nomir also claims its reputation was harmed, particularly among potential investors and marketing partners. Nomir further claims McDermott failed to convert two July 2005 provisional applications covering technology related to the biofilm-targeting invention to standard applications within the 12-month deadline. The patents would have expanded the use of the original technology into a method for combating biofilms in infected prosthetic joints. Because the original application became prior art, the complaint alleges the two applications filed later were "essentially useless." Nomir claims it also learned of this problem in August 2007. Nomir said the mistakes related to the two later patents generated $125,000 in additional costs for the company. It also claims it lost about $120.6 million in profits through 2008 because it wasn't able to patent the other two inventions. The fourth patent at issue in the case is for an "instrument for delivery of optical energy to the dental root canal system for hidden bacteria and live biofilm thermolysis." The company claims the technology is designed to treat "bacterially fueled inflammatory diseases" by destroying live biofilm bacteria without destroying nearby healthy tissue. Nomir claims McDermott filed its application in June 2004, but missed a deadline to amend it and add a claim related to photo damage. Lappin, Levi-Minzi and McCloskey could not be reached for comment. Nomir's lawyer on the case, Robert Cohan of Boston's Cohan Rasnick Myerson, acknowledged that it's generally difficult to prove lost profits, but said the "unique nature of the technology" in this case should make it "a good bit easier." "The failure to meet deadlines is certainly easy enough to prove," Cohan said. "The difficulty lies in establishing the value of the loss. I think it's an unfortunate situation that points up the importance of having an up-to-date, working docketing system," Cohan said. In a statement, McDermott said the firm has known about the situation with Nomir for several years. "Nomir, a development stage company, has asserted claims that we believe are without merit, alleging speculative damages for lost sales in connection with products that have never reached the market," stated the firm. "We will defend the case vigorously."