Wisconsin Supreme Court Accepts Three New Cases, Including a Case That Will Determine Whether a Crime with No Sexual Component May Trigger Sex Offender Registration Requirements

 

Supreme Court sealToday the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted three new cases for review, two criminal cases and one civil case.

One of the criminal cases, State v. Smith, 2008AP1011, asks the court to determine whether the sex offender registration statute, Wisconsin Statute section 301.45, is unconstitutional in its application to a defendant whose crime, false imprisonment of a minor, concededly had no sexual component whatsoever.  The Defendant Smith was convicted of falsely imprisoning a minor in connection with a drug crime.  That conviction triggered application of the sex offender registration requirements in section 301.45.  Smith did not register, and was charged with failing to register as required.  He argues that the sex offender registration requirement violates his due process and equal protection rights because his crime had no sexual component.

Continue ReadingWisconsin Supreme Court Accepts Three New Cases, Including a Case That Will Determine Whether a Crime with No Sexual Component May Trigger Sex Offender Registration Requirements

Hot Potato Conflicts

I recently taught about successive conflicts in my ethics class, and there could be no better timing than the Fish & Richardson case to explain the hot potato scenario.  The “hot potato doctrine” means that firms are generally prohibited from dropping smaller clients (like hot potatoes) in order to pick up more lucrative clients.

Apparently, Fish & Richardson represented, until recently, headset maker Aliph in its regulatory work out of Fish’s D.C. office.  Aliph is now suing to have Fish & Richardson disqualified from representing a direct competitor against it in a patent case.  As the Recorder explained:

Aliph Inc. moved to disqualify Fish from representing Bluetooth rival Plantronics in the patent case two weeks ago, arguing that the firm shouldn’t be allowed to sue its own client or get out of the mess by suddenly disowning Aliph at 8:30 p.m. the night before . . . .

Continue ReadingHot Potato Conflicts

New Issue of Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Is Here

Thanks to the outstanding work of its editors and staff members, the Winter 2009 issue of the Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review has just been released to the public! The issue opens with an article from Professor Jerome H. Reichman, the Bunyan S. Womble Professor of Law at Duke Law School, on “Rethinking the Role of Clinical Trial Data in International Intellectual Property: The Case for a Public Goods Approach.”  An early version of this article was presented by Professor Reichman as the 11th Honorable Helen Wilson Nies Momorial lecture at Marquette Law School in March of 2008.  The publication also features two additional articles, one from St. Mary’s University School of Law Professor Robert H. Hu on “International Legal Protection of Trademarks in China,” and one from  Dr. Thomas M. Mackey on “Nanobiotechnology, Synthetic Biology, and RNAI: Patent Portfolios for Maximal Near-Term Commercialization and Commons for Maximal Long-Term Medical Gain.”  Last, but not least, two excellent comments from our own students conclude the issue: Tiffany N. Beaty on “Navigating the Safe Harbor Rule: The Need for a DMCA Compass,” and Jeremiah A. Bryaron on “What Goes Around, Comes Around: How Indian Tribes Can Profit in the Aftermath of Seminole Tribe and Florida Prepaid.”

To all students and authors who put so much work into making this endeavor a success, congratulations again on an excellent Issue of the Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review! And to all others . . . enjoy the readings; they are truly interesting and greatly contribute to the academic and professional dialogue well beyond the intellectual property community!

Continue ReadingNew Issue of Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Is Here