Frontline Article from Frontline Law Firm


Frontline Article from Frontline Law Firm

 
 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Messrs. Sewell’s and Ng’s recent, featured publication, “A ‘Generic’ Victory for Specific Fact-Findings”, appears in this week’s IPFrontline newsletter (see hyperlink below).

On January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error” standard of review when assessing a district court’s ruling on the validity of a patent. See Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S. ___ (Jan. 20, 2015). The Supreme Court makes clear that the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard when reviewing a district court’s conclusions of subsidiary factual findings made during claim construction proceedings. The decision will send the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for further review allowing Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. (Teva) to continue its sales of Copaxone without competition from generic drugmakers.

IPFrontline is a web magazine about intellectual property. The IPFrontline electronic newsletter lands in more than 15,000 e-mail boxes every week, ensuring timely delivery of top stories and articles appearing in IPFrontline online. You are encouraged to comment and receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections.

A ‘Generic’ Victory for Specific Fact-Findings Frontline Article from Frontline Law Firm

 


Chairman Bar Association Highlight


Chairman Bar Association Highlight

 
 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell’s recent, featured publication, The Ignominious Patent Troll, also prominently appears in the year-end publication of the Brooklyn Barrister.

In Network Protection Sciences, LLC, and similar cases, courts ought to be more willing to utilize sanctions as well as the other methods discussed herein to shutter the courthouse doors to abusive litigation. It is incomprehensible to have these abusive litigation deterrents and not utilize them when the record screams otherwise. Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers sanctions for litigation abuses and indicates that reasonable attorney fees can serve as one form of sanctions. Additionally, the Patent Act provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285’s language was first included in the 1946 statutory revision of damage calculations. However, rather than limiting the award to “exceptional cases”, the 1946 statute provided that “[t]he court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 70 (1946 ed.).

It is understood that there is discretion involved in the sanction-worthy, decision-making process. Nevertheless, if rules that are available are not justly applied to appropriate situations, then there is little speculation that abusive litigation tactics will continue. As Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader says, “[j]udges know the routine all too well, and the law gives them the authority to stop it. We urge them to do so.” See Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien & David Hricik, Make Trolls Pay in Court, N.Y.TIMES, June 5, 2013, at A5.”

The Brooklyn Barrister is the official publication of the Brooklyn Bar Association. Dayrel looks forward to continuing his leadership roles as Chair of the Brooklyn Bar Association Intellectual Property Committee and Vice-Chair of the Brooklyn Bar Association Real Property Committee.

Chairman Bar Association Highlight

 

Brooklyn Bridge

Chairman Bar Association Highlight

 

Brooklyn Bar Association

 


Acclaimed Litigator Featured on the Cover


Acclaimed Litigator Featured on the Cover

 
 

Acclaimed Litigator Featured on the Cover – The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell’s article, “The Ignominious Patent Troll”, found below is the featured publication on the cover of the current issue of Intellectual Property Today.

In Network Protection Sciences, LLC, and similar cases, courts ought to be more willing to utilize sanctions as well as the other methods discussed herein to shutter the courthouse doors to abusive litigation. It is incomprehensible to have these abusive litigation deterrents and not utilize them when the record screams otherwise. Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers sanctions for litigation abuses and indicates that reasonable attorney fees can serve as one form of sanctions. Additionally, the Patent Act provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285’s language was first included in the 1946 statutory revision of damage calculations. However, rather than limiting the award to “exceptional cases”, the 1946 statute provided that “[t]he court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 70 (1946 ed.).

It is understood that there is discretion involved in the sanction-worthy, decision-making process. Nevertheless, if rules that are available are not justly applied to appropriate situations, then there is little speculation that abusive litigation tactics will continue. As Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader says, “[j]udges know the routine all too well, and the law gives them the authority to stop it. We urge them to do so.” See Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien & David Hricik, Make Trolls Pay in Court, N.Y.TIMES, June 5, 2013, at A5.

You are encouraged to subscribe to the firm’s complimentary blog and press release subscription services. We look forward to your comment.

The Ignominious Patent Troll

Acclaimed Litigator Featured on the Cover

 


Boost Your Career


Boost Your Career

 
 
Making shrewd and savvy career decisions is vital to your upward, career mobility.  To that end, The Johns Hopkins University’s New York Chapter and Society of Engineering Alumni welcome you to the upcoming panel discussion on Managing Career Changes in a Changing Global Market (http://alumni.jhu.edu/event/ManCar).  After discussion, there will be a networking cocktail hour with passed hors d’oeuvres.   Mr. Sewell is a featured panelist at this highly anticipated event on November 13, 2013. In addition to his dual degree from Johns Hopkins in Natural Sciences & Public Health, and MPH from Columbia University, Mr. Sewell continuously distinguishes himself as a top litigation attorney. He has been prominently featured as a preeminent legal authority on CNN as well as received the distinction of being named Litigation Lawyer of the Year in the USA. Moreover, he has been selected six times by New York Super Lawyers and is a 8-time honoree of The National Black Lawyers – Top 100. Additionally, he is recognized as “Superb” and a “Top Litigation Attorney” by the lawyer-rating service Avvo. 

For more than a decade, Dayrel has adeptly managed his pre-eminent full-service law firm specializing in Federal and State trial court litigation, Real Estate, Corporate Law, and Intellectual Property that successfully delivers strong client results to large governmental entities as well as corporate clients.

Being a life-long learner, and making shrewd, career decision-making are, in large part, responsible for Mr. Sewell’s success as well as that of many other Hopkins alumni.

The event will be held at the exclusive and elegant Union League Club in New York City, where club members have included fifteen Presidents, seven Senators, many Congressmen, diplomats, cabinet members, and scores of chief executive officers of major corporations.   Register today!  We look forward to seeing you. Boost Your Career

 


Bar Association Chair and Vice-Chair


Bar Association Chair and Vice-Chair

 
 

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell is now appointed as Chair of the Brooklyn Bar Association Intellectual Property Committee and Vice-Chair of the Brooklyn Bar Association Real Property Committee.

The Brooklyn Bar Association offers members incredible benefits and services, Continuing Legal Education and the opportunity to be a part of a community of lawyers that pride themselves on being both great attorneys and great friends. Bar Association Chair and Vice-Chair The Brooklyn Bar Association is a 2,000 member strong organization that works to enhance and improve the practice of law in Brooklyn, New York. The Brooklyn Bar Association is located at 123 Remsen Street and is a landmark brownstone building which is convenient to the Federal State and Civil Courthouses. The building boasts a meeting hall that is available for private functions, a library featuring free New York Westlaw for members in good standing and meeting rooms that can be reserved free of charge for use by members in good standing. Our publication, The Brooklyn Barrister, features articles and columns that keep our members up to date on developments in the law and in the legal community. The organization provides members services such as outstanding CLE programs, committees and sections for specific practice areas and networking opportunities at events such as our new member mixer and our annual dinner. The Brooklyn Bar Association also services the Brooklyn Community through the Lawyer Referral Service, which helps connect people to attorneys who can assist with their legal needs.

 

Bar members are encouraged to join the Intellectual Property and/or Real Property sections. Several benefits of membership include Continuing Legal Education (CLE) classes, other professional development (i.e., networking), and social events.



Angelina Jolie and The Supremes


Angelina Jolie and The Supremes

The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell’s article, entitled “Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court and Angelina Jolie: BRCA1 & BRCA2 Patentability”, is a featured cover story in this month’s issue of Intellectual Property Today™. Featured articles emphasize developments in cutting edge technology and their effect on intellectual property law practice.

 

On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its unanimous, landmark decision in the long-awaited and much anticipated case of Association For Molecular Pathology et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. That same day, the decision was prominently featured on several world news media outlets and firmly grasped the attention of more than just the intellectual property community.

Angelina Jolie and The Supremes Intellectual Property

BRCA1 protein

At issue before the Supreme Court, are nine of Myriad’s composition claims from three of its patents. The central issue presented to the Court is whether “a naturally occurring segment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101 by virtue of its isolation from the rest of the human genome.” The Supreme Court makes clear that extensive discovery efforts will not result in otherwise ineligible law of nature claims transforming into a patent. The future implications surrounding other issues of gene patentability was addressed, in part, by the Court. Besides finding cDNA patent eligible, the Supreme Court carefully crafted its decision to state that its ruling does not implicate method claims or new applications of knowledge about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. To this end, expect to see a marked increase in the number of patent applications claiming methods for genetic sequence isolation as well as new applications of knowledge. Additionally, Myriad—and those that enjoyed isolated DNA patent exclusivity—will likely have an advantage when applying for genetic sequencing method patents because a previous effect of the claims at issue was that said claims effectively precluded others from performing the method that yielded the isolated DNA. Since 1994, Intellectual Property Today™ continues to be a leading, national law publication that focuses on legal issues in patent, trademark, and copyright law. You are encouraged to comment on this article and to receive free updates by subscribing to the firm’s Blog and Press Release sections. Thank you.

Intellectual Property Today featured publication