News

• GlobeSt.com Highlights Recent Lawyer Promotions at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
  

  GlobeSt.com noted the recent lawyer promotions of Brian Beller and Scott Schneider to partner in the Real Estate practice; Jing Xia to partner in the Intellectual Property practice; and John Rondello to counsel in the Construction practice. GlobeSt.com is an online commercial real estate content platform.

• Real Estate Weekly Features Tarter Krinsky & Drogin's 2018 Lawyer Promotions
  

  Real Estate Weekly highlighted Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s recent lawyer promotions, noting that Brian Beller and Scott Schneider were promoted to partner in the Real Estate practice; Jing Xia became a partner in the Intellectual Property practice; and John Rondello was promoted to counsel in the Construction practice.

• New York Law Journal Highlights Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s Recent Lawyer Promotions
  

  The New York Law Journal’s On the Move column noted the recent promotions of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin lawyers Brian Beller and Scott Schneider, who were promoted to partner in the Real Estate practice; Jing Xia, who became a partner in the Intellectual Property practice; and John Rondello was promoted to counsel in the Construction practice.

• Bloomberg Big Law Business Highlights Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s Recent Lawyer Promotions
  

  Bloomberg's Big Law Business highlighted Tarter Krinsky & Drogin’s recent lawyer promotions in its Wake Up Call column.

• Tarter Krinsky & Drogin Promotes Four Lawyers
  

  Tarter Krinsky & Drogin is pleased to announce the promotions of four lawyers, three to partner and one to counsel. The firm's new partners are Brian Beller (Real Estate), Scott Schneider (Real Estate) and Dr. Jing Xia (Intellectual Property). John Rondello (Construction) was promoted to counsel.

• Jing Xia Joins Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP in the Intellectual Property Group
  

  Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP is pleased to welcome Dr. Jing Xia as a Counsel in the Intellectual Property Group. For over ten years, she has concentrated her practice on the representation and counselling of mid to large size generic pharmaceutical clients, especially litigations arising under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (Hatch Waxman).

Events

• Philip Braginsky and Jing Xia to Speak on Emerging Trends and Opportunities for Pharmaceutical Development at CPhI China
  

  On June 21, Intellectual Property co-chair Philip Braginsky and partner Jing Xia will speak at CPhI China, the leading pharmaceutical ingredients show in China and the wider Asia-Pacific region

• Why Chinese Companies Need to Exercise Caution When Attending Trade Shows in the United States
  

  Over the past few years, owners of U.S. patents and trademarks have used the appearance of Chinese companies at a trade show as infringement "traps." These patent owners have commenced infringement cases against Chinese companies based on those companies' activities at the trade show.

• New FDA Guidance on Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application
  

  The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a draft guidance summarizing the differences between abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) and 505(b)(2) applications. Both sections were added to the FD&C Act to provide new routes for obtaining approvals for drug applications. The guidance focuses on ANDA submissions under Section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, petitioned ANDAs under Section 505(j)(2)(C), and NDAs pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) and discusses the regulatory and scientific considerations for determining whether to file an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application.

• Implications of the FDA's Recent Guidance on the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act
  

  In December 2016, the FDA published an industry guidance related to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. This guidance offers suggestions to sponsors on the design and use of clinical pharmacology studies to support a claim of biosimilarity to a reference product.

• Why Chinese Companies Need to Exercise Caution When Attending Trade Shows in the United States
  

  Over the past two years, owners of U.S. patents have used Chinese companies' appearances at a trade show as a patent infringement "trap."

• Legal Alert: .SUCKS is Here: Can Your Brand Be Protected?
  

  With the goal of fostering public commentary, the new domain name .SUCKS was approved by ICANN. Despite objections from some in the IP community, the sunrise period for .SUCKS is now open; it runs until May 29th.

• Legal Alert: A New System For International Design Protection
  

  Design patents continue to grow in importance for many industries. If your company designs tangible products or packages, there is a new, efficient way to seek international protection for design features.

• Legal Alert: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank's Effect on Business Method Patents
  

  The patent landscape has changed regarding business method patents.
  In the summer of 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank which invalidated certain business method patents related to finance. The basis for the invalidation was that the patents covered an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection.

• Beware of the Boilerplate Series: "Defend, Indemnify and Hold Harmless"
  

  Many agreements include an indemnification clause typically using language like this: “Party A will defend, indemnify and hold harmless all claims, losses and damages against Party B related to its use of the Technology.”

• Beware of the Boilerplate Series: Defining Confidential Information
  

  In Non-Disclosure Agreements, there is often boilerplate language that includes trade secrets in the definition of “Confidential Information.” This seemingly innocuous language can lead to problems for the owner of the trade secrets.

• Beware of the Boilerplate Series: Limitation of Liability
  

  Be wary of giving up your rights for "lost profits." In most jurisdictions, there are two types of "lost profits": (1) those arising from general damages (recovery of money that a party agreed to pay under a contract); and (2) those arising from consequential damages (recovery of money lost based on other business arrangements). The first is generally easier to prove, but often a party in breach can be reasonably expected to pay the second.

• Beware the Boilerplate Series: Always Define the Meaning of "Intellectual Property"
  

  Clearly define the grant provisions of all of your IP contracts. If you want to transfer or receive "intellectual property" or "technology," ensure that these terms are well defined and unambiguous. Definitions matter! By making the contract terms clear, you can potentially reduce (or eliminate entirely) future litigation costs.