Howrey LLP, a once very prominent global law firm that has been around since July 1956, declared bankruptcy earlier this year after the collapse of merger talks with Winston & Strawn, and is still in the process of dissolution.
It is good to see that in the field of the law at least, even the biggest firms are still considered small enough to fail.
It isn't difficult to imagine a situation in which high government offiucials run around wringing their hands about what a disaster the failure of such a multi-national well connected form will be, and asking each other what can be done to save it.
Anyway, for those interested in a proper RIP: the firm is named after Jack Howrey, who chaired the Federal Trade Commission in the early Eisenhower years. His first partners were Bill Simon, Hal Baker, and Dave Murchison, and the firm's first focus was on antitrust law. Early on it became associated with the cereal industry, which has long had to fight antitrust battles.
As it grew, though, it developed other areas of focus, especially in intellectual-property law. The leading light of the firm's Amsterdam office, Willem Hoyng, is the author of a highly regarded textbook on Dutch IP law.
So they pass into history with a hardy "Cheers!" from me, and best wishes to all the displaced partners (who seem to have long since written lucrative tickets for themselves elsewhere) and the bankruptcy law trustee who has to sort it all out.
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intellectual property. Show all posts
11 November 2011
09 July 2011
Were They Bored?
At one point, during an auction for certain wireless patents last week, Google's representatives bid $3.14159 billion.
Yes, they bid pi.
Such behavior might have inspired Dr. Seuss, were he still around to hear of it.
Then the firm that was named for a number too high
Decided to bid for the patents. They'd try
With a whim and a will to win the IP
And choke out their rivals from markets -- with glee!
They could have bid "googol," if they'd spelt it right --
But then all those zeroes gave even them fright.
Upon a new plan they soon did alight:
They'd bid for a number so tasty to try
It needed no "e" when they all screamed for "pi"!
Yes, they bid pi.
Such behavior might have inspired Dr. Seuss, were he still around to hear of it.
Then the firm that was named for a number too high
Decided to bid for the patents. They'd try
With a whim and a will to win the IP
And choke out their rivals from markets -- with glee!
They could have bid "googol," if they'd spelt it right --
But then all those zeroes gave even them fright.
Upon a new plan they soon did alight:
They'd bid for a number so tasty to try
It needed no "e" when they all screamed for "pi"!
21 January 2011
Federal Circuit: Prometheus
In December the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Prometheus Laboratories v. Mayo Collaborative Services, an important test of where the patent-law winds might blow next, in the wake of last summer's Bilski decision from the Supreme Court.
You'll recall that in June 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the notion that Bernard Bilski was entitled to a patent on certain abstract ideas for hedging against energy commodity price increases. Although four of the Justices wanted a bright-line rule against "business method" patents in general, that fell short of a majority, and did not represent the judgment of the court, which as expressed in Justice Kennedy's decision was a rather ad hoc this-case-only sort of thing.
In the Prometheus case, the lab named after the god chained to a rock claims a right to a method of determining the proper dosage of a particular drug for a particular patient. The drugs in question are known as 6-MP and AZA, both of which turn into certain metabolites within the human body. The method, then, is to monitor the patient, determine the level of these metabolites, and keep increasing the dosage until those metabolites get into the desired range. If they are present in an amount above the desired range, decrease the dosage!
Mayo Collaborative argued that the way the body metabolizes 6-MO anbd AZA is a natural phenomenon, that natural phenomena are just as unpatentable as are abstract ideas, and that thus under Bilski this patent should be disallowed.
Even before the resolution of Bilski, this argument was successful before the district court. But the appeals court, the first time it heard this case, before the Supreme Court had decided Bilski, held for Prometheus. After Bilski, SCOTUS sent Prometheus back to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration.
The news then is that the circuit court judges have now taken the position: we have reconsidered it, only to conclude that we were right the first time around.
More thoughts on this case tomorrow.
You'll recall that in June 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the notion that Bernard Bilski was entitled to a patent on certain abstract ideas for hedging against energy commodity price increases. Although four of the Justices wanted a bright-line rule against "business method" patents in general, that fell short of a majority, and did not represent the judgment of the court, which as expressed in Justice Kennedy's decision was a rather ad hoc this-case-only sort of thing.
In the Prometheus case, the lab named after the god chained to a rock claims a right to a method of determining the proper dosage of a particular drug for a particular patient. The drugs in question are known as 6-MP and AZA, both of which turn into certain metabolites within the human body. The method, then, is to monitor the patient, determine the level of these metabolites, and keep increasing the dosage until those metabolites get into the desired range. If they are present in an amount above the desired range, decrease the dosage!
Mayo Collaborative argued that the way the body metabolizes 6-MO anbd AZA is a natural phenomenon, that natural phenomena are just as unpatentable as are abstract ideas, and that thus under Bilski this patent should be disallowed.
Even before the resolution of Bilski, this argument was successful before the district court. But the appeals court, the first time it heard this case, before the Supreme Court had decided Bilski, held for Prometheus. After Bilski, SCOTUS sent Prometheus back to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration.
The news then is that the circuit court judges have now taken the position: we have reconsidered it, only to conclude that we were right the first time around.
More thoughts on this case tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
