The Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005 (“GO Zone”) created a number of business incentives to help Louisiana and the other areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina. One of the key elements of the GO Zone legislation is the 50 percent bonus depreciation provision. This provision has been getting a great deal of coverage in the media and among the various investment circles. However, until guidance is issued by the IRS, there are some areas of uncertainty in this legislation.

eBay is in litigation with a small company that claims that its patents cover the online auction method used by eBay. Blackberry users were a judge’s pen stroke away from an injunction that would have stopped all Blackberry use in the U.S. In that case, the patent owner, again a small company, claimed that the famous Star Trek type devices infringed the company’s patent. These patents might have been detected during a patent search, if eBay or Blackberry undertook such searches. This article will discuss each type of patent search, the cost, and the purpose.

Patentability Searches

Suppose your company develops a new product that appears to be innovative. You would like to obtain a patent if it is feasible. Before spending the money for a patent application (the initial filing cost could range from $8000 to $20,000), it may be wise to conduct a patentability search. The purpose of this search is to look through the issued patents and published patent applications at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) to find those patents which are relevant to the invention. Once you know of the existing patents, known as the prior art, you can make a better determination of your chances at obtaining a commercially viable patent. A patentability search and report can range from $500 to $2500, depending on (1) the complexity of the technology and (2) whether the results are reported in a formal opinion or are merely discussed in a meeting.

On Friday, June 16th at Juban’s Restaurant, Kean Miller held its quarterly Business Briefing Seminar. Business and Corporate partner Dean Cazenave gave a very informative program entitled An Overview: Employment Agreements and Executive Compensation.

The program consisted of key provisions and pitfalls in drafting employment agreements for employers, and an overview of executive compensation…

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion June 19, 2006 in Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States, cases focusing on the extent of the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers (“COE”) over wetlands under the Clean Water Act (“Act”).  The Act allows the Corps to regulate “navigable waters of the United States.”  However, “navigable waters” under the Act is defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas” and are not limited to waters that are “navigable” in the traditional sense.  33 U.S.C. §1362(7).  For years the Corps interpreted the Act expansively to assert jurisdiction over virtually all wetlands regardless of how remote the connection to a navigable water, using the Commerce Clause as a basis. That was prior to the Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159, 167, 121 S.Ct. 675, 148 L.Ed.2d 576 (2001) (“SWANCC”), which held that “isolated” wetlands do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Corps and that wetlands must be adjacent or have a “significant nexus” to navigable waters to fall within the Corps’ jurisdiction.  Following SWANCC, the Corps and the courts have wrestled with the meaning of “isolated” and “significant nexus,” with the Corps ever seeking to retain the broadest jurisdiction. .

Distinguished fellow blogger Stephen Holzer, at Environmental Legal Blogs has an excellent short analysis of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States. Check it out here, and check out his blog frequently for similar insightful posts. His concluding comment on the case:

“Nonetheless, for those of us accustomed over the last 40-50 years to seeing the Supreme Court rarely put brakes of any kind on the federal government’s appetite for expansion, today was indeed one for the books.”

In Hamilton v. Winder, 2006-0994 (La. 6/16/06), 2006 WL 1669429, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the district court had the power under LSA-C.C.P. art. 1631(A) to “bump” a consistently tardy juror in the middle of trial and replace him with an alternate. Although Article 1769 states that “Alternate jurors…shall replace jurors who…become unable or disqualified to perform their duties,” the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not have to determine that the sluggish juror in question was either “unable” or “disqualified” to perform his duties.

The 18th Judicial District Court in Louisiana (Iberville, West Baton Rouge and Pointe Coupee Parishes) has requested, and received, an ad hoc judge appointment. Judge Thomas W. Tanner has been appointed by the Louisiana Supreme Court to handle all asbestos cases. Ad hoc judges are used occasionally in asbestos cases and have been appointed for…

Louisiana’s Title V permit program requires each permit to contain “a schedule of compliance consistent with LAC 33:III.517.E.4.” Under Section 517.E.4, and its federal counterpart 40 C.F.R. 70.6(c), the permit application must contain a “narrative description of how the source will achieve compliance and a compliance schedule” with respect to “any applicable requirements with which the source is not in compliance at the time of permit application submittal.” The schedule proposed must “resemble and be at least as stringent as that contained in any judicial consent decree or administrative order or compliance order to which the source is subject.” Id. Progress reports are required at least every six months. Id.

The need for “estate planning” is often dismissed by individuals as being a luxury which can only be utilized by the wealthy. However, anyone who owns any property has need for at least some knowledge of estate planning in order to determine who will receive his or her property at the time of death. The term “estate planning” is not restricted to planning or drafting of wills for individuals who will have a federal estate tax consequence at death. “Estate planning”, when used in its broadest sense, is necessary for the husband and wife who want to leave as much as they can to their surviving spouse for that surviving spouse’s economic well-being and protection. It is also necessary for the young husband and wife who have several children, a house with a large mortgage, a small savings, and life insurance. Estate planning is also necessary for the single individual with no children who desires to distribute his or her property in a manner different from the statutory course. Do not let the term “estate planning” fool you. It applies to each of us in some form or fashion.