Often, a change in political administrations produces a change in interpretation of the anti-trust laws. Liberals see every act of large corporations as detrimental to the interests of the “working man” (what do politicians know about “working”) and, hence, seek to utilize an expansive enforcement of the anti-trust laws to control the corporations. Conservatives, not being so paranoid, favor a more limited application of the anti-trust laws.

Recently, we wrote about a shrinking judgment. Today, we are writing about one which grew. Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.

The economy must be in really bad shape, as it appears we have reached a point where the lawyers are reduced to suing each other (Waggoner v. Chadbourne & Parke). In this case, a California attorney sued a New York law firm, in California, on behalf of a Texas client. The lawsuit alleges that the (New York) law firm charged its (Texan) client more for online legal research – such as Westlaw and LexisNexis – than the law firm actually paid, thus earning a secret profit. The Texan allegedly paid about $20,000 for services that cost the law firm about $5,000.

As unlikely as it may seem, some misguided individuals actually hold lawyers in low esteem. Indeed, they exhibit a great deal of unreasoned antipathy towards lawyers. So, in keeping with our goal of trying to attract as many readers as possible – however ridiculous their beliefs – we report on the case of Ecast Inc. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, wherein the defendants are lawyers. Yes, rejoice all you benighted clods, someone sued lawyers, alleging malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty.

by Alexander Poltorak - Mr. Grove was recently quoted in the article by Jonathan Thaw and Susan Decker, “Grove Says Patent System May Have Same Flaws as Derivatives” (Bloomberg.com, May 4 2009). With all due respect to Mr. Grove, he simply doesn’t understand the meaning of, and the underlying motivation for, patents.

As a refreshing change of topic, let’s turn our attention to trademarks. The T.T.A.B. (the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board – the Trademark Office internal appellate body) recently addressed a “question of first impression” (sounds impressive, doesn’t it?), namely whether fraud as to one class of a multiple class registration subjects the entire registration subject to cancellation. G&W Laboratories, Inc. v. GW Pharma Limited

The costs of IP litigation are astronomical – and rising. Ever the spin doctors, some law firms see this as an opportunity. They emphasize the conventional ways in which IP litigants can seek to control costs:

(1) find attorneys with lower hourly billing rates;

(2) keep legal teams small to minimize (billable) time devoted to intra-team communications;

(3) avoid litigating in so-called “rocket dockets” where compressed case schedules necessitate larger litigation teams;

(4) develop case strategy early and do not allow diversion;