The Legal Intelligencer Blog

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the First Judicial District settling its suit over the Philadelphia family courthouse for $4 million. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel agreed to pay $2 million, while the firm’s ex-partner Jeffrey Rotwitt’s malpractice insurer, Travelers, agreed to pay $2 million, according to the terms of the settlement.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the next chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Kathleen D. Wilkinson, announced that one of her initiatives will be launching a leadership program to assist young attorneys, women attorneys and attorneys of diverse backgrounds in the profession.

Also below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that a $3.4 million settlement was reached in the death of a 20-year-old college student who died after drunkenly falling 30 feet over a railing at a fraternity house on the University of Pennsylvania’s campus.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge granted most of the attorney fees requested after an employment discrimination case was resolved with a Rule 68 offer of judgment, despite the defense’s argument that one of the attorneys lacked experience in employment cases.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 5, Paul F. Prestia asks if patents are becoming impediments to innovation.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 7, Timothy Long and Lauri Damrell write about dealing with complex gender-discrimination issues in the workplace.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to email any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

 

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal and Pa. Law Weekly

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Also inside of today’s paper is the latest Intellectual Property supplement, so be sure to give it a read.

The top story in today’s Legal is a look at the law surrounding third-party liability of law firms, which has recently been in the spotlight as appeals have been made to the Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Courts. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, law firms have been targeted as third-party defendants for their alleged roles in allowing fraudulent, or simply bad, business practices to continue by their clients.

Also on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a lawsuit over the ownership of a LinkedIn profile is now set for trial after an Eastern District judge dismissed all of the federal claims and decided to proceed on the remaining claims under state law.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that an orthopedic surgeon who won a $392,000 verdict against the law firm that used what he claimed was an unfinished expert report and the medical professional organization that subsequently suspended him has sued the doctors’ association for refusing to remove from its website an article detailing the suspension proceedings.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Appellate Law column on Page 5, Howard J. Bashman praises the Superior Court’s increased access to opinions after a recently policy change announcement.

In a Family Law column on Page 7, Michael E. Bertin writes about a recent case in which the Superior Court analyzed relocation under the new custody statute.

Today’s lead story in PLW is the state Superior Court ruling that state law does not allow for underinsured motorist recovery to offset an award against a third-party tortfeasor. As reporter Ben Present writes, the holding overrules the court’s decision in Pusl v. Means.

Below the fold on Page 1, Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court has ruled that general practitioners are not barred from consensual sex with patients in a case of first impression regarding a GP who was providing “incidental mental health treatment” to a patient.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that the state Superior Court has imposed corporate liability on nursing homes in a recent decision.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about nonrefundable fee clauses; Daniel J. Siegel’s Legal Ethics column on proposed changes to the rules affecting legal advertising; and Daniel E. Cummins’ Politics column on where the presidential candidates stand on tort reform and judicial selection.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Friday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is lawyers making closing arguments in the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia priest sex-abuse trial. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, a prosecutor charged that Monsignor William J. Lynn lied to an investigating grand jury and on the stand. The trial is expected to go to jury today.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that Pepper Hamilton has continued its leadership changes by naming a new managing partner. Thomas J. Cole Jr. will be the new MP, effective Jan. 1, 2013, the firm announced Thursday.

Below the fold on Page 1, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that a Philadelphia jury has awarded $4.2 million for a one-third ownership stake in a granite and marble company with disputed ownership.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Gina Passarella looks at how Pennsylvania firms fared in the Am Law 200 rankings released yesterday. Despite most of the five Pa.-based firms in the second hundred having increases in gross revenue, it was tough sledding to move up the list.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section, including the First Circuit ruling DOMA is unconstitutional.

In a Law Firm Management column on Page 5, Edwin B. Reeser writes about the economic benefits of three different types of lateral hires.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Lewis R. Clayton writes that trademark owners have gained leverage in keyword ad wars.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Tuesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer, which also includes this week’s edition of Pennsylvania Law Weekly. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today’s lead story in PLW is a look at the effect Justice Joan Orie Melvin’s suspension will have on the state Supreme Court. As reporters Zack Needles and Ben Present write, the high court might have lost its tiebreaker based on a study of cases over the past two years.

Below the fold on Page 1, Ben Present writes that new juvenile rules aim to protect confidentiality.

On Page 3, Ben Present writes that the Commonwealth Court has ruled there is no benefits exception for “funded” employment.

There’s much more inside this week’s PLW, including Samuel C. Stretton’s Ethics Forum, in which he writes about lawyers drafting pleadings without signing their names; Sam Pond and Allison Wheeler’s Workers’ Compensation commentary on the real goal behind eliminating administrative burdens; and Shira J. Goodman and Lynn A. Marks’ Judiciary commentary on why sufficient funding and willing citizens are critical to the courts.

The top story in today’s Legal is Dechert’s products liability and mass torts group no longer serving as the king of the firm’s litigation focus. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, the firm has lost at least five products liability partners since last year and has adjusted its focus in some ways.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sympathized with Blank Rome and another law firm in a document battle between a defunct corporation and the government, which is seeking hundreds of allegedly privileged documents being held by Blank Rome. The company tried to appeal a district court order granting the government’s request for the documents, but was ultimately dismissed, although a split three-judge panel took a sympathetic view of the position the law firms were in.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court justices have agreed to hear arguments on whether medical malpractice defendants may rely on an “error in judgment” defense at trial.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sibling publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Health Care Law column on Page 5, Vasilios J. Kalogredis and Karilynn Bayus write about the dilemma of recovering costs in an overpayment victory.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Paul F. Prestia and Antranig Baronian write that patent clearance opinions are still important and still relevant.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today’s top story is Saul Ewing opening a Pittsburgh office by bringing on four attorneys from Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis. As reporter Gina Passarella writes, the office will fit into a market that has become sought after not just because of the Marcellus Shale and work relating to it, but because of all the shale play brings with it.

Also above the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Chief Judge Theodore McKee said that a limit on lengthy briefs announced in January is working.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that a worked injured in a wall collapse has settled his lawsuit for $2.6 million with the general contractor, a subcontractor and the site owner.

Also below the fold on Page 1, Saranac Hale Spencer writes that the ACLU is seeking to block the state voter ID law.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that as savings are stagnating, the First Judicial District has asked for more funding during a lengthy round of Philadelphia City Council budget hearings.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column on Page 5, Gina Ameci writes about the challenging personalities to be encountered during employee performance reviews.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Anthony S. Volpe and Carey Kulp write about improving the likelihood that you own the IP rights to a property.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to email any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Monday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today’s top story is Ballard Spahr growing its gross revenue 4.2 percent last year. Reporter Gina Passarella takes a look at the firm’s financials, noting that the headcount also grew from 6.1 percent from 446 attorneys to 473, causing a decrease in the firm’s revenue per lawyer of 1.6 percent.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that a divided state Supreme Court has ruled that homeless sex offenders are not exempt under the previous version of Megan’s Law. Under that law, sex offenders are required to notify state police of their current or intended residences.

Also below the fold on Page 1, reporter Saranac Hale Spencer writes that a federal judge has ruled that GlaxoSmithKline’s “nerve center” is in Delaware, disagreeing with two of his colleagues in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania who had previously ruled that the nerve center was in Pennsylvania. The decision means that the drug products liability litigation against the company will remain in federal court.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Ben Present writes that former state Supreme Court Justice Frank J. Montemuro Jr., who died last week at age 86, will be remembered as a “pioneer” for Italian-Americans in and outside the legal profession and a jurist who worked until he was forced to stop.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In a Family Law column on Page 5, James W. Cushing writes about new amendments to Pennsylvania’s adoption statutes regarding post-adoption contact.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Paul F. Prestia writes about the recent Mayo v. Prometheus decision and the potential for disincentivizing research and collaboration.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Friday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story this morning is the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association asking the First Judicial District to rethink recent changes made to its handling of mass tort cases. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the association sent a six-page, single-spaced letter this week to court leaders asking for rescission of some of the new court protocols, including the deferral of punitive damages in all mass tort claims.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Gina Passarella writes that the Republican National Committee’s attempt to vacate a 30-year-old consent decree with the Democratic National Committee didn’t hold muster with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The RNC had agreed not to police voter fraud without a court’s permission, but argued that subsequent modifications since the decree was agreed upon in 1982 made it more prohibitive against the party’s ballot protection efforts.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes about Mayor Michael A. Nutter’s proposal to keep counsel fees for indigent defendants not represented by the Defender Association of Philadelphia in the court’s budget for 2012-13, despite requests from the First Judicial District to remove them.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Environmental Law column on Page 5, Kenneth J. Warren writes about difficulties in establishing criteria in efforts to control nutrient pollution.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 7, Siegfried J.W. Ruppert and Guy W. Chambers write that the path for generic competition is wide open in the biotechnology industry.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Wednesday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

Today’s top story is the defense verdict being challenged in a hotly contested Philadelphia asbestos case. As reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes, the plaintiffs’ counsel has filed a post-trial motion claiming that the verdict sheet was developed because of alleged ex parte contact by the defense lawyers with the leadership of Philadelphia’s civil courts.

Below the fold on Page 1, reporter Zack Needles writes that the state Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on the question of whether messages posted on a Myspace page could be considered communication with a specific group of people. In Commonwealth v. Scott, lawyers disputed whether defendant Khalil Scott’s postings on Myspace were enough to constitute a probation violation. In one of the postings he appeared to identify himself as a gang member and referenced two apparent gang members in another.

In more Regional News on Page 3, Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the Philadelphia District Attorney aims to reduce homicides by raising bail in gun cases. More than 300 people were murdered in Philadelphia in each of the past five years.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

In an Intellectual Property column on Page 5, Eric G. Soller and Martha S. Helmreich write about the potential high cost of losing an infringement case.

As it is Wednesday, this week’s GC Mid-Atlantic column is on Page 7, as Martha “Frannie” Reilly writes about the ABCs of general counsel issues for nonprofit organizations.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Fresh Ink: Inside Today's Legal

Welcome to your Monday morning round-up of stories in today’s edition of The Legal Intelligencer. All of the links below will take you directly to today’s stories, or you can head straight over to The Legal’s homepage. (Some stories may require registration or a paid subscription.)

The top story today is the largest firm in Cincinnati, Dinsmore & Shohl, opening an office in the Philadelphia suburb of Wayne, Pa. As reporter Zack Needles writes, five lawyers from Pittsburgh-based Burns White’s Philadelphia-area and New Jersey offices will join the new office, including former practice group head Richard A. O’Halloran, who will be the office’s managing partner.

On the bottom of Page 1 today, reporter Gina Passarella has a story about how an unusual management setup has helped to spawn growth at Dechert. The firm’s chairman, Andrew J. Levander, splits his time between acting as one of the firm’s biggest rainmakers and focusing on bringing in high-level lateral partners across the firm’s global offices, a dual role that most consultants would say is a mistake.

In more Regional News on Page 3, reporter Amaris Elliott-Engel writes that the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a Pennsylvania law mandating that steel used in public works projects be made in the United States is not pre-empted by federal law, nor is it unconstitutional.

As always, our People in the News section is on Page 2, and the top stories from our sister publications across the country make up the Page 4 National News section.

Today’s Page 5 column is Commercial Litigation, where Jeffrey G. Weil and Maryteresa Soltis write about the Philadelphia Commerce Court’s recent issuing of an opinion declaring the business judgment rule alive and well for corporate boards in Pennsylvania.

Today’s Intellectual Property column is on Page 7, as Mark T. Vogelbacker writes about the fundamentals of European design patent protection.

If you have questions or comments about any of today's stories, or our coverage as a whole, we invite you to e-mail any of the reporters directly. We hope you'll enjoy today's Legal.

Is the Constitution the Roadblock to Meaningful Patent Reform?

By Anthony S. Volpe
Special to the Legal

The issue of patent reform and the enforcement of the rights afforded by patents has been making headlines. The make-up of the forces lining up on opposite sides of the issue are not predictable. But, predictably, each side is attacking the other for its self-serving view of how the reform should proceed. With this fight in mind, is it possible that the Constitution has built into its genius the very root of the problem?

The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power under Article 1, Section 8  “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writing and Discoveries.” Since there is no further definition of how this is to be achieved, it is left to the legislative process to provide the statutory framework to accomplish this mandate.

If it stopped at that point, getting the statutory framework in place may not be a problem. However, there is the not-so-small matter of the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," which was required to gain passage of the document. The First Amendment is a prohibition against government power that states, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." So, as the nation goes forth, the people get to weigh in on how the Congress should do its job.

As expected, individuals, companies, PACs, lobbyists, trade organizations and the like have chosen sides and there is a virtual First Amendment war of words over the alleged reforms. Each side is sure the other side's view will spell the end of American innovation. Each plainly ignores the fact that more U.S. patents now issue to foreign inventors than U.S. inventors, and many patents with U.S. corporate inventors are assigned to foreign parent companies. 

Many will point to the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently issued Patent Number 8,000,000 as proof that the current system is working. While the system is working in the sense that the PTO is doing its job, that is only one element of the whole patent system. The validity and enforceability of the patent is as critical as the issuance. In the present environment, there is huge uncertainty over issues as basic as what is patentable and how patents will be construed in the courts. The need for certainty in the patent world is critical. Everyone is reluctant to invest in innovation when the rewards are uncertain and the rules shift with the political winds.

Since the recent debt ceiling debate confirmed that the members of Congress will line upon the side of the First Amendment money that funds their campaigns, I predict that we will not get patent reform in a reasoned fashion. Instead, we will get the usual First Amendment blend of compromises that does little to add to the needed certainty.

Anthony S. Volpe is a founding partner of Volpe & Koenig. He can be reached at [email protected].