Anastasia N. Kaup has joined Duane Morris LLP as a partner in the firm’s Corporate Practice Group in its Chicago office. Prior to joining Duane Morris, Kaup practiced at Mayer Brown LLP.

Kaup has represented financial institutions, funds and other corporate clients in financing transactions across the private equity, real estate, hedge fund, private credit and distressed lending spaces. Kaup structures, negotiates and documents complex financing transactions domestically and internationally, at all levels of the organizational structure, with specific focuses on fund finance, sponsor finance, and financing in distressed situations. Her fund finance experience covers a wide spectrum of transactions to meet the financing needs of various types of funds at every phase of their existence. She also assists with the analysis and negotiation of investor documents with institutional, governmental, high-net-worth, and sovereign wealth investors. Kaup has represented private equity sponsors and their portfolio companies in nearly every industry, as well as lenders to such entities, in a wide array of financing transactions. Kaup also has significant experience counseling clients in distressed situations, in bankruptcy as well as out-of-court restructurings, and has represented clients in some of the most complex restructuring cases in the last decade. She has negotiated and documented countless transactions involving multiple creditors, and has substantial knowledge of intercreditor and subordination arrangements and agreements. Kaup’s experience with transactions during downturns as well as growth cycles distinctively positions her to assist clients with a broad range of financing-related needs at any time.

Kaup is a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School (J.D., cum laude, 2010) and the University of Utah (honors B.S., cum laude, 2008).

“Dominion Energy and Duke Energy announced that they are canceling the $8 billion Atlantic Coast Pipeline,” reports Claudine Ebeid McElwain and Greg Buppert in Southern Environment Law Center’s Press Releases.

“Southern Environmental Law Center Senior Attorney Greg Buppert issued the following statement: ‘This is a victory for all the communities that were in the path of this risky and unnecessary project. The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was wrong from the start. After years of opposition, legal defeats and threats to the environment, SELC is relieved to see Duke and Dominion make the right decision to walk away from it.

This is a great day for the people of Union Hill, for public lands, for landowners in the path, and for all North Carolinians and Virginians who deserve a clean energy future and are no longer on the hook to pay for this $8 billion pipeline.

Over the last six years, SELC has been honored to represent a dedicated and tireless group of conservation organizations opposed to the pipeline: Alliance for the Shenandoah Valley, Cowpasture River Preservation Association, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of Buckingham, Friends of Nelson, Jackson River Preservation Association, Highlanders for Responsible Development, Piedmont Environmental Council, Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc., Shenandoah Riverkeeper, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, Sierra Club, Sound Rivers, Inc., Virginia Wilderness Committee, and Winyah Rivers Foundation. Today’s outcome would not be possible without their energy and commitment.'”

Read the article.

“USA Technologies, Inc., a cashless payments and software services company that provides end-to-end technology solutions for the self-service retail market, today announced that Davina Furnish has been named General Counsel and Eugene C. Cavanaugh has been hired as interim Chief Financial Officer,” reported in Business Wire.

“Davina Furnish joins the company as its General Counsel, effective July 6, 2020. In her role she will oversee and direct all of USAT’s legal affairs, supporting the company’s growth initiatives. She will be based in Atlanta, Ga.”

“Ms. Furnish brings over 20 years of technology law experience in a variety of roles at small- and medium-sized public companies in the Atlanta area. She was General Counsel of Concurrent Computer Corporation from 2013 to 2017, having worked in a number of legal leadership roles at Concurrent from 2007 to 2017. Most recently, she has been advising on technology transactions at E*TRADE Corporate Services and SunTrust (now Truist). She began her career with CheckFree Corporation (now a part of Fiserv, Inc.), where she previously worked with USAT’s CEO, Sean Feeney. She also served as litigation counsel for Interland, Inc. (now called Web.com). Ms. Furnish earned her undergraduate degree in History from The Ohio State University and her J.D. from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.”

Read the article.

“Harvey Weinstein and his former studio’s board have reached a nearly $19 million settlement with dozens of his sexual misconduct accusers, New York state’s attorney general and lawyers in a class-action lawsuit,” reported in MarketWatch’s Associated Press.

“The deal, if approved by judges in federal courts, would permit accusers to claim from $7,500 to $750,000 from the $18.8 million settlement.”

“The former Hollywood producer was convicted earlier this year of rape and sexual assault against two women. Accusations by dozens of women in 2017 destroyed his career and gave rise to #MeToo, the global movement to hold powerful men accountable for their sexual misconduct.”

Read the article.

“It’s been a very long time coming, but Philadelphia-based Pepper Hamilton and Atlanta-based Troutman Sanders have finally completed their merger to create Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, a 1,100-lawyer firm with combined legacy revenue of $900 million in 2019, making it one of the 50 highest-grossing firms in the country,” reports Staci Zaretsky in Above the Law’s Biglaw.

“The merger was publicly announced in November 2019 and the firms were originally supposed to combine on April 1, 2020, but the pandemic put a damper on their plans. ‘While we are well-positioned to execute the combination on April 1, we believe the decision to postpone is in the best interest of our attorneys, staff, and clients,’ the firms noted in a March announcement, postponing the merger to July 1 due to the “unprecedented” challenges associated with the coronavirus crisis. In the meantime, both firms enacted austerity measures like pay cuts to control costs while COVID-19 wreaked economic havoc across the country.”

“Now that Troutman Pepper is finally here, with 26 offices spread across the country, CEO and chair Stephen Lewis, who formerly served as Troutman’s managing partner, is ready to get this party started.”

Read the article.

“Prosecutors contended attorney Keith Mitchell is a flight risk who should remain behind bars after he eluded authorities for more than 24 hours and potentially obstructed justice when he called four Toledo city councilmen after learning he and they were the targets of a federal bribery and corruption probe,” reports Allison Dunn in The Blade.

“Mr. Mitchell told a federal judge he thought the call he received Tuesday morning by an FBI agent informing him of his pending criminal charges was nothing more than a prank, hence his refusal to disclose his location during the call — and his subsequent contact with his four co-defendants.”

“But the call, it turned out, was no prank. And even though U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey Helmick on Wednesday declined prosecutors’ request and released Mr. Mitchell from custody, the long-time lawyer with deep community ties nows joins city councilmen Yvonne Harper, Tyronne Riley, Larry Sykes, and Gary Johnson, in a precarious position: free on bond, but very much under scrutiny as the federal government embarks on what could be the largest public corruption prosecution in northwest Ohio history.”

Read the article.

“The first reported substantive ruling by a judge sitting in Illinois on the legal implications of whether COVID-19 and the resulting governmental shelter-in-place orders relieve a tenant’s obligation to pay rent pursuant to a force majeure provision in a commercial lease agreement was entered by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Donald Cassling on June 3, 2020,” write Paul W. Carroll and Daniel E. Crowley in Gould + Ratner’s Publications.

“The ruling in In re Hitz Restaurant Group, LLC, (N.D. Ill., Case No. 20-05012) came in response to a landlord’s motion to force a restaurant tenant to come current on unpaid post-petition rent. The court sided with the tenant and reduced its post-petition rent obligation by 75%.”

“The ruling already has garnered widespread attention as a potential bellwether on the applicability of force majeure clauses in commercial leases.”

This article provides five to know about this decision.

Read the article.

“The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that, under Texas law, a plaintiff can sustain an action for trade secret misappropriation even if the plaintiff voluntarily communicated the alleged trade secrets to the defendant,” writes David Mlaver in McDermott Will & Emery’s IP Update Trade Secrets.

“HAT Contract hired Hoover Panel Systems to design and manufacture a power beam for desks in an open office environment. The parties engaged in oral negotiations that culminated in a written contract, which provided that ‘any . . . proprietary information shall be considered confidential and shall be retained in confidence by the other party.’ The contract also provided that the ‘parties agree to keep in confidence . . . all information disclosed by the other party, which the disclosing party indicates is confidential or proprietary or marked with words of similar import.’ Hoover developed a prototype and forwarded it to HAT, but never marked any information as confidential. HAT approved the prototype and placed several orders, although far fewer than Hoover expected. Hoover discovered that HAT had sent the prototype to at least one overseas manufacturer and was using it to manufacture products similar to those Hoover manufactured.”

“Hoover sued HAT in state court. HAT removed to federal court. Hoover then amended its complaint to recite causes of action for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. HAT asserted affirmative defenses of waiver and ratification and a counterclaim of bad faith, but the district court declined to consider the counterclaim as untimely filed. HAT moved for summary judgment on all of Hoover’s claims and its waiver and ratification defenses, which the district court granted. Both parties appealed.”

Read the article.

“Once parties agree to arbitrate, courts generally defer to the arbitrator’s judgment regarding resolution of a dispute,” discuss Jim Archibald, Amandeep S. Kahlon & Luke D. Martin in Bradley’s BuildSmart Arbitration. “The prevailing approach in many states is to not set aside an arbitration award unless the arbitrator clearly exceeded his or her authority and to exercise every reasonable assumption in favor of the validity of an award. The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently confirmed this view in Faith Technologies, Inc. v. Aurora Distributed Solar LLC.”

“In that case, the court upheld the arbitrator’s award for equitable relief, despite the parties’ contract prohibiting the arbitrator from providing any equitable remedy. The court found the parties’ stipulation to arbitrate all disputes effectively waived the contractual prohibition on equitable relief, especially where the equitable claim for abandonment was pled and not objected to until after the final award.”

“In 2016, Aurora hired Biosar to design and construct solar-power generators for a project in Minnesota. Biosar hired Faith Technologies to provide labor, materials, and services for the project. The EPC contract between Aurora and Biosar permitted arbitration to resolve disputes arising out of the contract but prohibited the arbitrator from ‘awarding nonmonetary, injunctive, or equitable relief.'”

Read the article.

The Supreme Court recently determined that a generic term combined with a top-level domain designation can be protected as a trademark. Hotel booking website Booking.com B.V. sought to register its “Booking.com” domain name as a trademark. The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) refused registration, taking the position that a generic terms such as “booking” combined with a top-level domain such as “.com” is necessarily generic and unregisterable. On judicial review, however, the District Court determined that “Booking.com” was not generic, even though “booking” standing alone would be. The District Court further found that the mark had acquired secondary meaning based on survey evidence that had not been before the PTO that 74.8% of participants identified the mark as a brand name, and ordered the PTO to register the mark. The PTO appealed only the holding that the mark was not generic, conceding that the survey evidence was sufficient to establish secondary meaning, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling.

The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a generic term followed by a top-level domain is not automatically generic. The Court instructed that the proper analysis is whether the proposed mark, taken as a whole, signifies to the relevant class of consumers a class of goods or services as opposed to signify a particular company, rejecting the PTO’s bright-line rule. Justice Ginsburg, writing for the 8-1 Court, stated that consumers do not refer to the class of hotel booking service providers as “booking.com” companies, which means that the mark is not generic. Justice Ginsburg further noted that the PTO had not previously followed their proposed bright-line rule, pointing to the registration of “ART.COM” on the principal register and “DATING.COM” on the supplemental register.

The PTO analogized this situation to the addition of “Company,” Corporation” or the like to a generic name, which has long been held unregisterable; Justice Ginsburg, however, noted that, as there can only be a single entity using a particular domain name at a time, the addition of the top-level domain necessarily points to a single specific entity rather than a generic class of goods or services. She was quick to state that this does not mean that a generic term combined with a top-level domain is automatically non-generic, but instead depends on whether consumers perceive the term as naming a class of goods or services or as capable of distinguishing among members of the class. In making this determination, courts and the PTO can look to consumer surveys, dictionaries, usage by both consumers and competitors, or any other source of evidence bearing on consumer perception.

The Court also discounted the PTO’s concern that the registrant of a “generic.com” mark would seek to preclude others from using the generic term or similar terms in domain names, such as “ebooking.com” or “hotel-booking.com.” The Court noted that this concern exists with respect to any descriptive mark, and that the weakness of the mark would preclude findings of customer confusion.

While the majority asserts that the addition of a top-level domain to an otherwise generic mark does not automatically make the combination non-generic, it is difficult to imagine a circumstance where such a domain name would fail to pass the test set forth in the opinion. As Justice Breyer asserts in his dissent, there will never be instances in which consumers literally refer to a class of goods as “goods.com,” “goods.com” will not appear in dictionaries, and there will always be but a single owner of a “goods.com” domain name. He also notes that survey evidence could result in generic terms being associated with a single source where the source has enjoyed a period of exclusivity in the marketplace or has spent significant money and effort in securing such public identification, and that such an association has never before allowed for registration of a generic term. Justice Breyer further considers the risk of anticompetitive harm through allowance of such a mark. As he notes, why would a firm want to register a domain name, which it already has exclusive use of, as a trademark unless it wished to extend its area of exclusivity to preclude the use of similar domain names? He points to the owner of “ADVERTISING.COM” having obtained a preliminary injunction against a competitor’s use of “ADVERTISE.COM” (later overturned when the Ninth Circuit determined that “advertising.com” was generic for on-line advertising) as an example of this type of harm. This concern did not, however, carry the day.

Thomas McNulty is counsel at Boston intellectual property law firm Lando & Anastasi, LLP. He can be reached at TMcNulty@LALaw.com or 617-395-7040.

“Drug company Hoffmann-La Roche (OTCMKTS – RHHBY) falsified scientific conclusions and mounted a high-powered marketing and lobbying campaign to deceive the government about the effectiveness of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) for fighting a flu pandemic, according to new filings in a federal False Claims Act lawsuit. The case seeks to recover more than $1.4 billion of taxpayer dollars that the federal government wrongly spent to add Tamiflu to the Strategic National Stockpile,” reports Lanier Law Firm in Herald Mail Media’s State News.

“In a highly anticipated response to Roche’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, whistleblower Dr. Thomas Jefferson alleges that Roche was aware that studies didn’t show that Tamiflu could protect individuals from acquiring influenza, reduce contagiousness of those infected or treat secondary symptoms. At best, studies have found that Tamiflu might slightly shorten the duration of flu symptoms.”

“The federal Food and Drug Administration repeatedly denied Roche’s efforts in the early 2000s to approve Tamiflu for pandemic use. According to the latest filings by whistleblower lawyers at The Lanier Law Firm and Halunen Law, once thwarted by the FDA, Roche began a campaign to fund, produce and publish misleading medical journal articles to create the appearance that Tamiflu would be effective at responding to a flu pandemic. The global conglomerate then used those studies and articles to create a false narrative for marketing and to lobby the CDC and Congress. As alleged, federal and state governments purchased tens of millions of doses of Tamiflu for the Strategic National Stockpile based on Roche’s misrepresentations.”

Read the article.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit this week reinstated part of a False Claims Act (FCA) verdict that was overturned in 2018, issuing a judgment of more than $255 against two skilled nursing facilities, two related entities providing management services at the facilities, and an affiliated company providing rehabilitation services,” reports Maggie Flynn in Skilled Nursing News’ Fraud.

“The original judgment of roughly $350 million was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Steven D. Merryday, who argued that the claims were not enough to merit such an amount.”

Registered nurse Angela Ruckh brought the qui tam action against multiple companies alleging “that the defendants violated the False Claims Act by misrepresenting the services provided to Medicare beneficiaries, while also failing to comply with specific Medicaid requirements.”

Read the article.

“The Tezos (XTZ) class-action lawsuit from law firm Block & Leviton will likely conclude in a $25-million settlement on August 27. Tezos, like many initial coin offerings (ICO) from 2017, has come under scrutiny from both investors and regulators alike alleging that its token sale constituted an illegal offering of securities,” reports Osato Avan-Nomayo in Coin Telegraph.

“Indeed, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has come down hard on numerous 2017-era ICOs demanding penalties for securities violation. Even distributions to non-U.S. citizens have also come under the SEC’s radar, as was the case with Telegram.”

“The SEC has consistently maintained that most ICOs are indeed unlicensed securities offerings despite pushback from stakeholders in the country to exempt a wider range of tokens from securities regulation. With more jurisdictions paying greater attention to crypto-based fundraising, the ICO model appears to be a thing of the past with more focus on regulated token sales.”

Read the article.

“Madison Square Garden Entertainme.nt Corp. … announced that Scott Packman – a seasoned executive with more than 25 years of legal experience – has been named Executive Vice President and General Counsel, effective July 1. In this role, Mr. Packman will oversee and direct all of MSG Entertainment’s legal affairs, supporting the Company’s growth initiatives,” posted on Business Wire.

“Mr. Packman will work closely with the MSG Entertainment executive management team to support the long-term direction and overall management of the Company. He will be responsible for managing the Company’s legal affairs team, including all corporate, commercial, transactional, litigation, regulatory and day-to-day legal matters, and will report to Jim Dolan, Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of MSG Entertainment.”

Read the article.

By Nathan Harris and Peter Lando

Though it has gone largely unnoticed in the press, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) took effect on July 1. Ratified in January, the USMCA represents a modernization of the 1995 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Chapter 20 of the USMCA touches on all areas of intellectual property law, harmonizing many of the member country’s provisions for protecting and enforcing patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.

Here is a summary of some of the more notable intellectual property provisions of the USMCA.

Longer Copyright Terms

The USMCA requires its members to offer copyright protection for a term of at least 70 years after the author’s death, an increase over the 50-year requirement set by NAFTA. Where an institution is the author, the term is extended to the longer of 75 years after the work was first published or 70 years after creation of the work.

Safe Harbors for ISPs

The USMCA requires countries to offer a “safe harbor” provision that incentivizes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to cooperate with copyright owners in battling infringement. In particular, ISPs are excluded from monetary liability if they provide a notice-and-takedown mechanism for receiving reports of infringing material on their systems and act quickly to remove the materials. An ISP seeking safe harbor must not receive a direct financial benefit from the infringement.

Notably, Canada has negotiated an exemption for itself from this notice-and-takedown requirement in view of its own notice-and-notice provision, under which it simply notifies the accused infringer of the complaint and monitors its activity for a time.

Protections for Pharma Companies and their Generic Competitors

Pharmaceutical companies developing new biologics are often required to submit clinical and other test data to regulators. While such test data is of great value to generic competitors, the USMCA requires that regulators treat such test data as confidential for at least five years after marketing approval for the new pharmaceutical product. On the other hand, the USMCA allows manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals to import or use a patented product in order to perform testing and generate information to prepare to seek marketing approval for their product.

Patent Term Extension

The USMCA calls for countries to grant an extension of patent term where a country’s IP office has unreasonably delayed in granting the patent. An extension may be had of up to five years from the date of filing, or three years after a request for examination is made, whichever is later.

Harmonized Trademark Registration and Enforcement Practices

Under the USMCA, countries must allow for electronic filing of applications and maintenance of registrations. Trademark registration terms must be at least 10 years. The USMCA also calls upon countries to protect non-traditional marks such as sound marks and scent marks, as well as certification marks and collective marks, and ensures that anti-dilution remedies are available for well-known (or “famous”) marks.

Stronger Protection for Trade Secrets

The USMCA requires countries to strengthen their trade secret provisions to the standard followed in the United States. For example, members may not have national laws limiting the term of protection for properly maintained trade secrets or curtailing voluntary licensing of trade secrets. Judges involved in trade secret cases must follow strict confidentiality guidelines. Penalties including monetary fines, termination of employment, and imprisonment must also be implemented for cases of willful misappropriation of a trade secret.

Criminal Liability for Infringement

Countries are required under the USMCA to implement criminal penalties for willful importation or exportation of counterfeit trademark goods or pirated copyrighted goods “on a commercial scale,” a low standard that includes any acts carried out for commercial advantage or financial gain.

Enhanced Statutory Damages

The USMCA also strengthens provisions for statutory damages for infringement. It specifies that available damages must be both fully compensatory and sufficient to serve as a deterrent. At the same time, safeguards must be implemented to prevent their abuse.

Protection Against Enforcement Abuse

Countries must allow for compensation when a party has been the subject of abusive enforcement procedures by a plaintiff, such as an improper injunction. Provisions must be implemented that would allow courts to order the plaintiff in such cases to pay the defendant’s expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

Ex Officio Border Enforcement

The USMCA requires provisions that allow customs and other law enforcement officials to act on their own initiative (i.e., without a prior court order) to stop suspected counterfeit or pirated goods being imported, exported, or in transit through the country. Countries must then have a process in place for assessing whether the goods actually infringe.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – July 1, 2020 – Cohen Seglias Pallas Greenhall & Furman PC is pleased to announce that Shanlon Wu and Julie Grohovsky have joined the firm as partners in the Washington, D.C. office. Wu will lead Cohen Seglias’ new White Collar Defense & Government Investigations Group, which will also include Grohovsky, along with former state prosecutors Christopher Carusone and Brionna Denby, as well as the new Student Defense Group. Grohovsky will lead the firm’s new False Claims Act & Whistleblower Group, which will also include Wu. The new partners were previously at their own firm, Wu Grohovsky PLLC.

Wu is a former federal prosecutor experienced in handling high-profile white collar criminal matters, student defense, and legal issues facing higher education institutions. Drawing on his experience in conducting criminal investigations and trying such cases, Wu has represented clients such as former Trump aide/political consultant Rick Gates in the Robert Mueller investigation of former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. His white collar practice involves advising individuals and companies facing investigations and prosecutions for federal and local criminal violations including health care fraud, defrauding the government, conflicts of interest, and allegations of bribery.

Wu counsels higher education institutions on investigations and policies, as well as the new Title IX regulations that go into effect in August 2020. With his significant background representing college and university students facing potential disciplinary proceedings or criminal investigations brought by institutions, Wu offers a unique perspective on the university hearing process, and the implementation of the new regulations, including the requirement for cross-examination.

Wu also pioneered the practice area of college student defense, which has grown to encompass defending college, graduate school and high school students in the face of potential disciplinary charges arising from academic misconduct, Title IX allegations and other student conduct code violations. He leads the firm’s new Student Defense Group, which regularly defends students in disciplinary proceedings for academic violations including online cheating during remote exams, plagiarism, alcohol and drug violations, hazing and assault, as well as Title IX matters.

Wu served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno, advising her on criminal and civil investigations, e-commerce issues, congressional oversight, and legislative review, and liaised with the FBI, DEA (Criminal Division), National Institute of Justice, and the White House Counsel’s office. As an Assistant United States Attorney, he served as a supervisor in the District of Columbia United States Attorney’s Office, led a Police Corruption Task Force, and served as a senior supervisor on an Independent Counsel investigation regarding a Cabinet official. Wu is a legal analyst on CNN, regularly appearing to discuss notable developments on a wide variety of legal issues.

Grohovsky represents crime victims in criminal, civil, and Title IX proceedings, as well as whistleblowers who bring cases under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (FCA) or other laws with whistleblower provisions. She leads the firm’s new False Claims Act and Whistleblower Group. Grohovsky advises individuals, particularly government workers, in investigations conducted by Inspector Generals’ Offices and the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility. In addition, Grohovsky regularly represents individuals and businesses involved in white collar criminal investigations and students facing criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

Grohovsky previously served as an Attorney Advisor in the Office of the Inspector General for the Department of Justice, where she investigated allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse within the Department. She also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia, during which time she also held the role of Director of Training and was responsible for training all of the lawyers and support staff in the largest U.S. Attorney’s Office in the country.

Corporate attorney also joining business, entertainment firm’s Dallas office

DALLAS – Business and entertainment law firm Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP has expanded its intellectual property and corporate legal expertise with the addition of six IP professionals and a veteran corporate law attorney in Dallas and Houston.

In a major expansion of the firm’s intellectual property expertise, attorneys Ross Robinson, David Lovell and David Odom join the Dallas office as partners, with Henry “Bud” Ehrlich joining as a partner in Houston. Of Counsel Stan Moore and patent agent Shoaib Mithani are joining the Dallas office. The firm also welcomes Robert McCormick as a partner in its Dallas-based corporate group. All join Shackelford from Winstead PC.

“We are excited by these additions. Robert is an exceptional attorney with a broad range of corporate experience and while we have a number of attorneys who provide our clients with ongoing IP assistance on many fronts, never before have we had the depth of expertise that this group represents,” says firm founder John Shackelford. “With the breadth of knowledge they bring, their addition is almost like introducing a new practice area to the firm.”

The attorneys’ practices incorporate all areas of IP law, including transactional and litigation work as well as strategic IP guidance, portfolio due diligence, and patent preparation and prosecution for a diverse range of industries.

“Shackelford is a dynamic and client-focused firm and we look forward to doing our part to help coalesce the IP practice while also expanding the range of services available to the firm’s clients,” said Robinson.

Robinson’s practice emphasizes U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution, preparation of opinions regarding patent infringement and validity, and client counseling. He has drafted and prosecuted numerous complex patent applications.

Lovell’s practice focuses on patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. He works closely with clients to help strategically develop and grow their portfolios, and has extensive experience in all stages of patent procurement, including preparation, prosecution, and appeals before the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Odom counsels clients involved in information technology, electronic, electrical, mechanical, computer hardware and software, telecommunications, energy, medical devices, and oil and gas in patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret rights, as well as in portfolio and related docket management.

Ehrlich’s practice is focused on counseling clients on all aspects of portfolio development and management, including worldwide patent and trademark preparation and prosecution and providing legal opinions and studies in regard to patent infringement, validity, and product clearance. In addition, he counsels clients with regard to technology development agreements and licensing.

Moore’s primary practice area is patent and trademark law. His practice also includes domestic and international patent preparation, prosecution and licensing in mechanical, telecommunications, electro-mechanical, and computer technologies.

McCormick’s corporate practice focuses on complex mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations; real estate acquisitions, dispositions, leasing and financing; general business counseling and strategic planning; and secured, mortgage and specialty financing.

Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP is a general business, aviation and entertainment law firm with attorneys and offices in Dallas, Houston, Frisco, Fort Worth, and Austin, Texas, Nashville, Tennessee, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Learn more about the firm at http://www.shackelford.law.

Eversheds Sutherland is pleased to announce the further expansion of the firm’s Chicago office with the arrival of three attorneys in the Real Estate Practice Group. Ruth A. Schoenmeyer has joined the firm as partner, and Kathleen Dempsey Boyle and Stephanie J. Kim have joined the firm as counsel.

Schoenmeyer is the fifth partner to join the firm in Chicago, and the third real estate partner added there since the office opened in May 2019. The Real Estate Practice Group has added ten new attorneys in New York and Chicago since the beginning of 2019 – five partners, three counsel and two associates.

Schoenmeyer, who joins from White & Case, has more than 25 years of experience in commercial real estate, both in-house and in private practice. She advises clients on a variety of transactions, including leasing, redevelopment, disposition and acquisition matters. Her clients include retailers, developers, quick-service restaurant chains, and logistics companies. She frequently speaks and writes about commercial real estate leasing topics and is a member of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.

Boyle, who joins from Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, has more than 35 years of experience counseling clients on all aspects of commercial real estate leasing, development and redevelopment. She represents developers, landlords and tenants regarding retail, mixed-use, office, warehouse and industrial projects. Prior to private practice, she spent several years as associate general counsel at one of the largest shopping mall operators in the US, and as of counsel at the world’s largest tire sales and auto service retailer. Boyle is a member of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.

Kim, who also joins from White & Case, has more than 20 years of experience in commercial real estate. Her experience includes commercial real estate leasing on behalf of property owners and tenants of retail, shopping centers, office, industrial and other commercial properties. She also has experience representing developers, property owners and purchasers in the development, acquisition, disposition and management of office, commercial, industrial, condominium, vacant and residential properties.

CHICAGO – Barnes & Thornburg has added labor and employment attorney Terese M. Connolly as partner in the firm’s Labor and Employment Department. Ms. Connolly, who joins in Chicago, advises multinational corporations on a full spectrum of employment-related issues that arise when managing a global workforce.

Connolly works with clients throughout all aspects of the employment life cycle. Over the years, she has built a global network of contacts to provide multinational organizations with both domestic and international employment law counseling, training, and advice on domestic and cross-border employment law issues related to mergers, acquisitions, corporate reorganizations and other transactions. She joins the firm from Culhane Meadows, where she was Chair of the Labor and Employment practice group.

In addition to supporting multinational corporations’ daily workforce-related operations, Connolly represents clients in a number of matters, including those that emerge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the WARN Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and various state wage and hour laws among others.

Connolly earned her J.D. from Chicago-Kent College of Law, with honors, earning C.A.L.I. awards in both Disability and Privacy Rights in Employment Law.

“E-commerce and tech behemoth, Amazon, has filed a lawsuit against the former vice president of marketing for its Amazon Web Services division, Brian Hall, alleging that his new role at Google Cloud violates the terms of his non-compete agreement,” report Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle in Lubin Austermuehle’s Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog.

“In its complaint, Amazon alleges that Hall’s employment with Google threatens to cause irreparable harm and risks exposing valuable competitive information to one of its biggest rivals. Amazon seeks both money damages and injunctive relief, requesting that the court enjoin Hall from working for Google for the remainder of the 18-month non-compete period set forth in the agreement.”

“This lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by Amazon to enforce non-compete clauses in employment contracts. In 2017, Amazon sued another former vice president who left Amazon Web Services to take a job with a Seattle-area software company but dropped the suit shortly after filing it. In 2019, Amazon filed a similar suit against a former Amazon Web Services sales executive after he too left the company to take a job with Google Cloud. A judge ultimately agreed to partially limit certain aspects of that employee’s role at Google but did strike down certain portions of the restrictive covenant as ‘unreasonable’ and took Amazon to task for taking a one-size-fits-all approach to its non-compete agreement. This latest lawsuit comes after Washington state enacted a new law last year that severely restricted the use of non-compete agreements within the state.”

Read the article.