1054
Showing all 3 results
-
Doubling down — The latest on patentability of “isolated” DNA molecule
February / March 2013
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1054
Abstract: Members of the biotech industry were much relieved in 2011 when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an “isolated” DNA molecule is patentable. However, in another case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the methods at the heart of a diagnostic test weren’t patentable. Taking this into account, the Federal Circuit issued a second ruling that was once again positive news for the biotech industry. This article examines the case, but a sidebar notes that further review may be on the horizon. Citation: Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Myriad Genetics Inc., No. 2010-1406, Aug. 16, 2012 (Fed. Cir.); Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012 (Supreme Court)
-
Is your buy-sell agreement doing its job?
March / April 2010
Newsletter: Estate Planner
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1054
Abstract: A buy-sell agreement should be a fundamental part of an estate plan for those who own an interest in a family or closely held business. After a “triggering event,” it gives the company or the remaining owners the right or the obligation to buy a departing owner’s interest. But a buy-sell agreement can take the form of a cross-purchase or a redemption agreement (or a hybrid of the two). The right type of agreement and the specific provisions that should be included depend on several tax and practical business factors involving taxes, management control and valuation. A sidebar to this article lists the criteria necessary for a buy-sell agreement to establish the value of a business interest for estate tax purposes.
-
Music promoter wins “record” damage award
July / August 2008
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 1054
Abstract: This article discusses a recent case, Popovich v. Sony Music Entertainment, which illustrates the benefits and pitfalls of using a hypothetical market standard to determine damages. As the case demonstrates, a party that loses an asset through the fault of another shouldn’t be deprived of damages simply because no ready market for that asset exists. The article notes that attorneys should work with their financial experts to develop alternative theories, including a hypothetical market standard, for quantifying a party’s financial loss.