Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Before you begin to study for the LSAT, it is vital you select an LSAT review course that consists of the best study materials that best suit your learning style and background. Choosing the right-fit online prep course plays a crucial role in scoring high on the LSAT and getting into the law school you are eager to attend.
Although passing the LSAT is essential for admittance to law school, a successful LSAT score does not guarantee you entry. One of the best ways to make an admissions committee select you over another candidate is to write an excellent personal statement. The statement is your opportunity to show the admissions committee what makes you the ideal asset for the course of study. The way you present your background, experience, and training can make all the difference.
If you do not put in the number of hours required to learn the study material, you will not pass the LSAT. Likewise, if you do not have an organized structure to your learning, you are setting yourself up to fail. Ideally, you should start studying for the LSAT two or three months before the test. During those months, you should aim to study two to three hours per day, five days a week. You will need to block off the rest of your calendar and get your head down if you are serious about successfully passing the LSAT.
You will need to spend many hours dedicated to completing LSAT practice problems if you want to ace the exam. You need to do this for various reasons. Practicing LSAT practice problems enables you to become familiar with how test questions are structured. You will also become familiar with the levels of difficulty that are included in test questions, as not every question will be of the same level of difficulty. Also, you simply need to familiarize yourself with LSAT questions as much as possible before the test comes around so that you are prepared to tackle anything the exam throws at you.
To ace the LSAT, you will have to do well on the topic of Logical Reasoning. That is because Logical Reasoning makes up half of the LSAT score. So, although studying things like Logic Games and Reading Comprehension are important, studying Logical Reasoning has twice as much importance.
Once you have spent time studying materials and practicing LSAT questions, it is best to take full-length LSAT practice tests. You should aim to take at least four full-length practice tests before the day of the real exam comes around. You will then be so knowledgeable about the test’s structure, format, and timing that you are sure to crush the LSAT.
The day before the test date, prepare every aspect of the LSAT day. Ensure you have everything you need to take with you to the exam, know how you will get to the test center, and by what time. The more prepared you are for the day of the big test, the more you can focus on putting in your best performance to ace the LSAT.
The upcoming legal events in the US for 2020 will call for presenters and attendees who are not only lawyers but also other members of the international community who are willing to share topics from their research and findings.
Here are some the best upcoming legal events in the US:
This conference is organized by the Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies or RAIS. This event promotes collaboration of different professionals from the academe and researchers from various professions. It promotes the study of diverse subjects from the perspective and approach of different disciplines. This conference will give lawyers the opportunity to work with professionals from other fields.
This event is attended by leading academic scientists, researchers, and scholars to discuss all aspects of the law. It provides a platform for other professionals to learn and share recent innovations, trends and concerns. This is also where lawyers share practical challenges they experience in the field and the solutions they have adopted.
This is a federated organization that draws together scholarly events for presentation valuable for students, academics and industry researchers. It focuses on all aspects of Constitutional Law and Political Science. It also calls professionals from different fields in different countries to come together and discuss Law and Political Science. If you are traveling from a country under The Visa Waiver Program (VWP), you should be able to prepare this requirement to be able to attend and present for this conference. If you have to buy or renew your visa, submit your 3-steps ESTA application form now and have it ready in no time. If your requirements are complete and your visa is processed, you can now attend more conferences and other events in the USA using the same visa for two years.
This international conference focuses mainly on all aspects of Health Politics, Policy and Law. Here, topics would include health policy management, systems and technologies used for healthcare and others that would also be beneficial for medical practitioners and allied health workers.
This conference focuses on all aspects of the Internet, Law and Politics. The start of the new millennium has brought the age of the Internet and the discussion about the E-world would be beneficial for anyone. Important topics that would be discussed here are about data protection, taxations and ICTs, intellectual property, and the most pressing one is electronic voting.
Ensuring that you are amenable to travel means that you would be able to attend various upcoming law events in the US. You do not want to miss out on these because of lost documents or missed visa. Process your ESTA now and book the flights to the conference you've been wanting to attend.
Tackling climate change and how it is impacting Kuwait’s economy
Kuwait is the 7th largest exporter of oil, providing 50% of its GDP, but climate change is causing people to rethink their dependency on oil.
Climate change will potentially affect everyone’s future. Of course, the oil and fossil fuel industry has an impact and so, as a country responsible and involved in this sector, Kuwait needs to address their part in this, both from a concern for our economy, but also from the social and environmental impact.
That is a reason to why I am setting up a charity called Green for Life. The aim is to work together with the government and the respective industries to explore changes we can make to our oil extraction, purification and transportation methods to clean up the industry and encourage legal reform to protect it. This is not about attacking the industry, but working with them to find solutions. I hope, eventually, that we can also reduce Kuwait’s carbon footprint by encouraging the industry and government to invest globally in tree plantations and support environmental initiatives. There will also be an educational strand of Green for Life, working with schools and universities to explain the impacts of Climate Change and show how we can all make small changes to have a positive impact.
Kuwait has a great investment potential for international business, but I feel there is caution with international investors regarding the Arab World and ease of business. I feel that to remain successful, Kuwait needs to diversify its economy, which is something that has been touched on in Vision 2035.
What is Vision 2035?
Kuwait’s Emir, Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah GCB (Hon), is working to diversify and strengthen Kuwait’s economic competitiveness by boosting the private industry and reducing legal red tape through legal reform. The country is making strong head-way speeding up business and property registration, cheaper energy and making the economic environment generally more inviting to outside investors.
Confronting foreign investors’ misconceptions about Islamic law
I think many smaller businesses have incorrect conceptions about Shari’a Law and assume it may negatively impact business, for example, in the case of interest and loans. They are unaware that many Arab countries have a Civil Code based on the French system and are, therefore, very familiar to EU businesses. The Commercial Code takes a pragmatic view of lending money, an essential part of business. Kuwait, in particular, has also been making many changes to its Commerical Code to facilitate foreign startups and international business relations.
Tackling gender stereotypes in Kuwait and lawI recently gave a TEDx talk discussing stereotyping of Women; stereotyping is a frequent challenge limiting the options and dreams of young women everywhere. It reduces their confidence to step up to careers and positions they are qualified for and capable of. The first step to making cultural changes is promoting legal reform and I am currently working with the World Bank to do just that. I am passionate about motivating young people to reach for their dreams. As a lecturer, I see the creativity, insight and innovation with which young people approach global problem-solving. All of my articles and talks work to encourage organisations and businesses to invest in our youth and give them opportunities to lead and make a real difference. Women make up half of our global population; we lack half of society’s perspective, innovation and skills if they are not represented in top positions of law, business and leadership. We need equal representation and we need to encourage young people, and young women, in particular, to step up.
Dr Bashayer AlMajed
Dr.Bashayer.AlMajed@gmail.com
More about Dr AlMajed
As an Assistant Professor of Law at Kuwait University, Adviser for Kuwait government, I am committed to the importance of law and justice, particularly in the Middle East. A professor’s role, as both teacher and researcher, is an honour. I believe it is also a responsibility to empower and inspire others; to use my position as an educator, as an adviser, lawyer and as a young, female voice to represent an authentic Kuwaiti female experience; to show difficulties we face, but the successes that women can achieve regardless. I strive to show how improving equality in Kuwait, and empowering our youth to lead and bring fresh ideas, we can strengthen our economy. I work hard to promote a modern, enlightened standpoint on major legal and humanitarian issues. From an early age, travelling extensively and studying abroad, I have embraced the importance of internationalism: I am now an active international, award-winning, conference and public events speaker.
What are the different types of unlawful discrimination?
Like the term “harassment”, “discrimination” has several meanings and connotations. For purposes of employment law, discrimination (differing treatment of an individual or group) is unlawful if it is based in whole or in part of a person’s protected status. Conversely, discrimination, which may be unethical or even immoral, does not give rise to a legal claim for which a party may seek redress with an agency or in court. Stated simply, the law provides redress only for those characteristics or status a legislature has deemed protected by statute. It is also important to note that there are layers of legislative protection that can be found in each separate state through City ordinances, state statutes and federal laws, along with the myriad of court cases applying this body of legislation.
Currently, the most common protected statuses include: race, national origin, sex, disability, age, religion, affiliation or non-affiliation with a labor union, whistleblowers (public employees or employees of publicly traded companies), military service, veterans’ status, and work status. In addition, sufficiently severe harassment on account of the protected status listed is considered a form of discrimination much the same as sexual harassment.
Some protected characteristics do come about through an extension of common law, such as state public policy exceptions to the at-will employment rule or the interpretation of an existing statute. Currently, the Supreme Court of the United States is looking at the issue of whether Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex extends to sexual preference and transgender status. I co-authored a short article in 2010 mapping the trajectories that could lead courts to extend protection or result in the issue being “sent” to Congress. See TitleVII’s Transgender Trajectory: An Analysis of Whether Transgender People are a Protected Class under the Term “Sex” and Practical Implications of Inclusion, 15 Tx J. Civil Liberties and Rights No. 2 (Spring 2010), (University of Texas, Austin).
How are transgender employees protected when it comes to workplace discrimination?
This depends on the state and local government under which they reside. Several cities and states have adopted explicit ordinances and statutes that prohibit discrimination on a person’s transgender status. In addition, a state may have a public policy exception by virtue of the state’s case law. This may soon change depending on the case pending before the Supreme Court.
How can employers support transgender employees?
First and foremost, employers should listen to their employees who are transgender or come forward to announce that they intend to make a change. While this issue has made a lot of news, employers generally are not familiar with all the issues that arise under these circumstances. Second, maintaining privacy to the extent possible and prohibiting workplace harassment on the basis of an individual’s transgender status. It is important to recognize the fact that employers can always adopt and enforce policies that provide more protection than existing law. Employers and business owners who feel strongly about the issue should consider policy changes and training on regarding those changes.
From the above, what rights do transitioning employees have when regarding work absence, toilets and changing rooms, etc.?
The federal statute prohibiting disability discrimination and requiring accommodation (ADA) has specific exclusions that some courts have ruled exclude transitioning. This is by no means a consensus on the issue, but readers should be aware of the disparity. However, as noted there are several state statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of transgender status, to the extent if an employer allows time off or paid time off for other medical conditions, then they cannot single out transitioning employees. Also, transitioning employees should review the Family Medical Leave Act and state or local mandated leave.
As far as accommodating the workplace, this issue generally gets more attention than what is generally warranted. For example, single-stall bathrooms, private changing areas and modifying company dress codes can avoid a lot of problems. Stated simply, most issues of this kind can usually be addressed in a relatively simple fashion. Nonetheless, the use of multi-stall bathrooms, common changing areas, sharing hotel rooms during business travel etc., do raise more complex issues that should be carefully considered.
It has been reported that more than one in four transgender people have lost a job due to bias, and more than three-fourths have experienced some form of workplace discrimination[1]; from a lawyer’s perspective, what do you think should be done to change this?
Again, employers can take the lead regarding their own policies and how they want their work environment to develop and operate. Second, lawyers in jurisdictions which have not adopted ordinances or statutes regarding transgender status may wish to consider getting involved personally or through their state and local bar associations to promote awareness and the adoption of legal protections. Third, lawyers who regularly represent employers or employees should take the time to educate themselves on this and other gender-related issues and their effect on the workplace.
Shawn D. Twing, Partner
Mullin Hoard & Brown, LLP
500 S. Taylor, Suite 800
Amarillo National Bank Plaza II
Amarillo, Texas 79101
806.372.5050
Shawn D. Twing is an Equity Partner at Mullin Hoard and Brown LLP and works at the Firm’s offices in Amarillo and Dallas, Texas. Mr. Twing has been a board-certified labor and employment law specialist since 2000 and maintains a multi-jurisdictional trial and transaction practice. In addition to law practice, Mr. Twing taught law classes to undergraduates and MBA candidates and he regularly writes and lectures on labor and employment law issues. Mr. Twing graduated with honors from the University Of Arkansas School Of Law in 1993. He is admitted to practice in Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, as well as, several federal District and Appellate Courts.
[1] https://transequality.org/issues/employment
Prohibiting US firms and individuals from paying bribes to foreign officials in furtherance of a business deal, the FCPA’s impact in the CEE/SEE (Central and (south)Eastern European Countries) region continues to grow. We speak to Jitka Logesová who heads the firm-wide Corporate Investigation practice at Wolf Theiss, on what impact the FCPA has and the importance effective compliance management systems play in such situations.
What is the relevance of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the CEE/SEE region?
The influence of the FCPA is tremendous. To give you some perspective, most of the corporate investigations that we are currently running in the CEE/SEE region are somehow FCPA-triggered. The CEE/SEE countries are still perceived as more vulnerable to corruption than the rest of Europe as indicated, for example, in the latest Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index. The concept of corporate criminal liability was introduced gradually and relatively recently in some of the countries in the region. However, at the same time the will of public authorities to prosecute corporate crimes is generally on the rise. For example, since 2015 the number of commencement of criminal proceedings against legal entities in the Czech Republic increased almost by double. So if companies have business activities occurring in this part of the world, they should really focus on compliance issues and being able to present an effective compliance management system, to enable them to emit as much corporate criminal liability as possible.
Why is the FCPA so important here and what impact can the violations of the Act in jurisdictions outside the US have?
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act gives the United States authorities effective power to prosecute US and foreign companies with certain ties to the United States jurisdiction for bribery of foreign officials. The word "foreign" is particularly important, indicating that the legislation covers illegal activities (bribery of foreign officials) outside the United States, in every other jurisdiction where a company or an individual have set up their relevant business. If, for example, non-compliant behaviour, or even suspicious behaviour, is detected in one of the company's CEE/SEE subsidiaries, the company can be held liable for this, not only in that particular jurisdiction, but also in the United States, even if the activity occurring in the US subsidiary was legal.
The sanction being imposed by the DOJ is extremely high and excludes additional costs, such as legal fees, costs of monitorship, costs associated with updating the compliance system (etc). Alleged violations of the FCPA are extremely sensitive to deal with. The potential of reputational damage is tremendous and it has serious consequences with respect to business.
Having been found guilty entails being possibly excluded from participation in public tenders in the EU for several years. These are significant losses and that is why the investments into compliance should not be neglected. Besides, third parties are nowadays more cautious and pay much more attention to the compliance of their business partners than a few years ago as a precondition to get involved with them. The interesting thing is that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was established in 1977, but it started to be actually enforced almost 30 years later. The CEE/SEE corporate criminal liability and anti-bribery laws are only a few years old and the authorities are still struggling to use them effectively. The US authorities have much longer experience with enforcing the FCPA. The extraterritorial reach of the FCPA is vast, which is also due to the fact that it has never been tested sufficiently by courts – most of the cases are settled.
There seem to be many factors at play. How can companies ensure that they are not violating the rules given this?
The key resides in an effective compliance management system. Legal entities should use all efforts and adopt adequate measures to prevent, or at least minimise the risk(s) of a crime being committed. Companies which are managed appropriately will not suffer from criminal liability. I would like to point out that solely the adoption of certain measures is absolutely insufficient. In the event of a crisis situation, the authorities take into account the effectiveness of the measures and whether there exists a real compliance culture within a company. Therefore, such measures must address the specific situation of the legal entity and form an effective compliance management system.
What would you classify as an ‘effective compliance management system’?
A proper compliance management system should be based on proper risk analysis and reflect the size of the entity, complexity of regulatory requirements, international nature of the company, the scope of business, the risk profile of the entity and the market environment in which it operates. Moreover, a compliance management system must not only be put in place and forgotten about, as it is in need of a continuous update in light of new circumstances and risks. Of course, even if the system is set up correctly, a crime can still be committed due to a breach of obligation by an individual. The human factor cannot be eliminated completely. However, the crime should not be attributed to the company in such an event.
How does a corporate investigation proceed if a company is under suspicion of violating the FCPA?
The standard corporate investigation usually consists of three phases. The first one comprises the review of initial information, background searches and sometimes initial fact-finding interviews with relevant custodians. Background searches reveal red flags and identify individuals who we should focus on during the data review or who should be interviewed in the next stages to understand their involvement in the matter.
The following investigation phase resides in the technology-assisted electronic data review based on appropriate keywords. Data protection and privacy issues are extremely important at this stage and the use of proper technology and the right definition of keywords reduce the risk of breaching data protection and privacy rules. The red flags either prove or disprove to be real, sometimes new facts emerge and the scope of the corporate investigation adapts to reflect these.
After the data review, the interviews with individuals involved follow in order to fill in the missing pieces of information, to confront them with findings and give them the opportunity to explain what happened. We then proceed with an analysis of all the findings and propose recommendations to the client.
Concerning the final stage, the company decides - or it might be effectively "forced" by law enforcement authorities - to implement an effective compliance management system. The existence of an effective compliance management system is a precondition for the possibility to release the company from its criminal liability (compliance defence) and aims at preventing misconduct in the future.
How should companies handle their reputation (with clients or the media) when undergoing a corporate investigation?
It is of utmost importance to be prepared, even if the company is not in a crisis situation yet. The ‘crisis communication’ preparation should be a part of the first phase of the whole process and it should be based upon the background searches and be constantly updated throughout. The company should consider hiring a local agency with a substantial track record in crisis communication if it is not able to manage the situation using internal resources. It is necessary to appoint a manager responsible for coordinating these activities, prepare for various hypothetical situations and to involve the experts conducting the corporate investigation to the process. Lawyers need to be involved at all times during the communication stratégy. The potential legal consequences of every communications step should be taken into account.
JITKA LOGESOVÁ
Partner
Pobřežní 12
186 00 Prague
Czech Republic
jitka.logesova@wolftheiss.com
Jitka Logesová heads the firm-wide Corporate Investigation practice at Wolf Theiss covering the CEE/SEE region. She specialises in corporate investigations, compliance, corporate criminal liability/white-collar crime and asset recovery. Before joining Wolf Theiss, Jitka established and built up a firm-wide compliance, risk and sensitive investigations practice at another regional law firm. She was tasked by the Czech General Prosecutors office to help draft the methodology for state prosecutors on how to evaluate corporate compliance management systems and to educate the state prosecutors in this respect. She has wide experience in various sectors, where she advised clients primarily on FCPA triggered issues and investigations, led a number of corporate internal investigations in CEE/SEE and advised on various compliance issues including setting up anti-corruption and compliance programmes. Jitka is Senior Co-Chair of the International Bar Association (IBA) Anti-Corruption Committee. She is also a Certified Auditor for ISO 19600 (compliance management systems) and for ISO 37001 (Anti-Bribery management systems). She has also published extensively on these topics and is a frequent speaker at compliance and anti-corruption conferences. Further, Jitka teaches a Business Ethics class as a guest lecturer at the Anglo-American University in Prague.
What constitutes legal proof of invention?
In terms of protectability, one that maintains a higher intellectual “performance”, than another person skilled in the art, is capable of filing the patent application; this has been the case since the end of the 19th century. With entry via Art. IV No. 4 introduced § 2a Patent Act (now § 4 Patent Act) regarding the laws devised at the International Patent Convention from 21 June 1976, a codification of an inventive step for patent law occurred for the very first time: an invention ought to involve an ‘inventive step’, in case the idea is not rendered obvious by a person skilled in the art.
As a matter of fact, nothing constitutes towards “legal proof” of an invention in German Patent Law nor in European Patent Law, but rather, we have to address the question when an ‘inventive step’ in a patent claim has been reached.
The assessment of an ‘inventive step’ is a question of law which is to be judged via an evaluative appraisal of the factual circumstances which are directly or indirectly capable of indicating the conditions of the inventive step.
The other way around, to show "non-inventiveness" of the applied subject matter, the person skilled in the art needs impulses, suggestions, hints or other reasons, to end up on the subject matter claimed by the patent application in an obvious way.
In order to prove the invention as belonging to the ‘state of the art’, it is required that the person skilled in the art is able to use their obtained knowledge and aptitude that they collected during their education and vocational experience to prove they could have developed the solution in an obvious way (meaning of the subject matter being applied a patent for).
However, this solely is not sufficient; the inventor needs to have a reason why they chose that particular path/ solution to end up on the subject matter being applied for.
To what extent the person skilled in the art requires a ‘state of the art’ suggestion to further develop a known solution in a (pre)-determined way, is a question which must be evaluated in the light of the circumstances of each individual case, which requires an answer regarding a general overview of all predominant elements of fact. In such cases, explicit references are significant for the person skilled in the art.
When legal proceedings arise in this area, what evidence is needed to prove who invented the invention first?
By the time of the application of the patent, the first to file (FTF), the first to invent (FTI) as well as the first-inventor-to-file (FITF) concepts exist. FTI are legal concepts that define who has the right to the grant of a patent for an invention.
There is an important difference between the strict nature of the FTF under the European Patent Convention (EPC) (and also the German Patent Act) and the FITF system of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO FITF system allows early disclosers some “grace” time before they need to file a patent, whereas the EPO does not recognise any grace period, so early application under the FITF provisions is an absolute must for a later EPO patent.
Art. 60 I S.2 EPC assigns the decision about the material right to an application to the national courts. The protocol of recognition decides which court is responsible. In Germany, the right of vindication of a European patent application against a non-entitled party is by means of Art. 60 I S. 1 EPC, Art. II § 5 International Patent Cooperation Treaty enforced.
In the German Patent Law, the one that is the “actual” inventor (you could say the first inventor) could file a suit, by means of a vindication suit, before of the responsible district court. To this concern § 8 sentence 1, as well as § 8 sentence 2 of the German Patent Law are relevant.
To determine whether an entitled person can demand the transfer of a patent or the granting of a co-entitlement to it [under Sec. 8, Patent Law] and whether there is a claim to be named as (co-)inventor [under Sec. 63 (2), Patent Law], an examining comparison of the teaching applied for the patent with that whose unlawful withdrawal is claimed, is required.
For this purpose, it must first of all be examined, to what extent both teachings are identical. Whether and, if applicable, to what extent a wrongful extraction is present, it can be reliably assessed only on the basis of established similarities between the teaching which is claimed to be extracted and the teaching that is actually applied.
This is why the claim for vindication is also open to those who have completed an invention and is possibly protectable in itself, but which makes a substantial contribution to the subject matter of the application or the property right granted, provided that the invention taken is an inventive contribution, a creative contribution or a qualified contribution, to the subject matter of the application or the property right granted.
Today, an inventor can protect an invention in Europe via one or several separate national patents or single a European patent.
It would be conceivable, however, to file objections by third parties with the EPO (European Patent Office) and/or the DPMA (German Patent Office) during the grant procedure in order to prevent the "allegedly" entitled party from being granted a patent. The opposition could also be filed before the competent patent authority in order to destroy the patent.
How long do these proceedings last?
A lawsuit before the district court does not initially have a specific processing period, but the length of first instance proceedings, i.e. the proceedings before the regional court, is often limited to one to three years. Both, the plaintiff and the defendant can appeal to the responsible Higher Regional Court, whereby the duration of the proceedings can also be expected to be between one and three years.
What happens if there is not enough evidence? How can clients recover from this?
If the action before the district court and/or the appellate court is dismissed and the "evidence" has not convinced the court, the right remains with the (alleged) first inventor.
In this case, if the decision of the responsible court is legally binding, the client cannot sue twice in the same case according to § 281 ZPO. Therefore, the client cannot "recover" from this final decision of the German civil courts.
Can you share any changes you are looking out for in the patent world, especially regarding the anticipated Unitary Patent, which will impact clients?
It is clear to mention the implementation of the Unitary Patent. Unitary Patents will make it possible to get patent protection in up to 26 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the EPO. They will build on European patents granted by the EPO under the rules of the European Patent Convention (EPC), so nothing will change in the pre-grant phase and the same high standards of quality search and examination will apply. After a European patent is granted, the patent proprietor will be able to request unitary effect, thereby getting a Unitary Patent which provides uniform patent protection in up to 26 EU Member States.
Today, an inventor can protect an invention in Europe via a one or more direct national patent applications (filed with national patent offices) or via a European patent (filed with the EPO). The EPO examines applications for European patents centrally, saving inventors the costs of parallel applications at each national patent office, while ensuring a high quality of the granted patents.
However, granted European patents must be validated and maintained individually in each country where they take effect. This can be a complex and potentially very costly process: validation requirements differ between countries and can lead to high direct and indirect costs, including translation costs, validation fees (i.e. fees due in some member states for publication of the translations) and associated representation costs, such as the attorney fees charged for the administration of the patent (i.e. payment of national renewal fees). These costs can be considerable and depend on the number of countries where the patent proprietor wishes to validate the European patent.
Dr Andreas Peters
Senior Partner
Hannke Bittner & Partner | Patent- und Rechtsanwälte mbB
Prüfeninger Straße 1 | 93049 Regensburg | Deutschland | www.hannke-patent.de | mail@hannke-patent.de
Telephone 0941 – 58 62 09-0 |
Dr Andreas Peters, Senior Partner at Hannke Bittner & Partner, is a German and European Patent Attorney and has been the IP area since 2008, especially in the areas of Patent Prosecution and Patent Litigation. After having received his master’s degree in physics with honours and having graduated as a fellow of a highly recognized scholarship, he obtained his PhD in physics, to eventually attend Law School in order to become a German and European Patent Attorney.
Moreover, Dr Peters has acquired an intermediate diploma in Business Administration, as well as an intermediate diploma in Microsystems Technology, thus enabling him to advise clients not only entrepreneurially but also engineer-wise. Hitherto, he has successfully prosecuted hundreds of patent application and also operates in patent infringement trials at the Federal Patent Court, as well as at the Federal Supreme Court.
Compliance risks companies face in this era and how to avoid them
Based on my experience within the global business environment, the major risks impacting enterprises are antitrust, bribery & corruption, environmental issues, money laundering, cyber crime and trade restrictions.
A good method behind tracking and monitoring risks are built from five steps; I see these steps as pillars to build up a robust and effective system to monitor and prevent risks. They are as follows:
How effective enterprise risk management can identify risks before they become a major issue
In order for risk management to be effective, the enterprises need to embed and develop the combination of the following elements:
How lawyers prevent such risks from occurring
Legal advisers can work alongside clients to assess the company compliance risks framework, identify gaps, detect potential risks and suggest action plans to ensure the business maintains its long-term competitive advantage. I do think there are many ways for us to help our clients in being better prepared to face emerging threats. As professionals, for example, we can contribute to influential conferences, seminars and leading magazines on the changing nature of the challenges to business integrity and company reputation. We are experienced in providing specialised support for our clients in developing and enhancing the right compliance framework tailored to the needs of their businesses.
CONTACT:
“FdA Law Firm” - Legal Services in Business Law
Founder: Fausto De Angelis
Via Rinaldo Arconati n° 51
21100 Varese (Italy)
Tel: + 39 335 6402404
https://www.linkedin.com/company/studio-legale-avv-fausto-de-angelis/
Fausto De Angelis, is the Founding Partner of “FdA Law Firm” – Legal Services in Business Law. He has 25 years of background and experience as an international corporate lawyer both “in-house” with large corporations and in private practice. Currently his firm carries out legal and corporate consultancy for large companies and SMEs.
He graduated in Law from "La Sapienza" University in Rome and completed post-graduate studies in Business Law at Harvard Law School and in General Management and Strategy at SDA Bocconi.
The focus of his advisory is on business contract law, compliance, corporate M&A, labour and trade union law, and business crisis management.
He is also a legal consultant to Trade Associations and Export development bodies.
Traditional tools for protecting Intellectual Property (IP) such as patents and trademarks aren’t always fast enough to secure sensitive assets. Below DEIP’s CEO Alex Shkor discloses real use cases how blockchain revolutionizes the way innovators secure their intellectual property and helps lawyers and legal advisers minimize issues associated with IP management.
Raising the question of Blockchain for intellectual property and brand protection, professionals provoke a response that mimics a child on a long car journey: are we nearly there yet? For innovators or startups determined to protect their IP and ideas from counterfeiting too, blockchain does offer some interesting possibilities. Moreover, there are many more areas where intellectual property law and blockchain technology are crossed.
Firstly, ideas registered in blockchain help create more persuasive defense in court; this practice provides trusted digital evidence of your ownership of the idea. Once you register a file in blockchain, the date and time of the registration are recorded and stay there forever – this information can’t ever be erased or tampered with and can be easily verified by any independent third party.
Secondly, blockchain simplifies partnership formation based on IP assets. It offers fractional ownership thanks to the smart-contracts on the distributed ledger. Furthermore, it enables access to the system around the clock, provides greater liquidity of data and frictionless transfer of ownership.
Thirdly, but not less important, smart contracts offered on the Blockchain platform enables the owners to create automated agreements for distribution of profit from IP assets proportionally to fractional ownership of these assets, avoiding lengthily lockup of money and the need for intermediary parties trusted by both sides of the transaction.
Let’s check how the mentioned benefits of using blockchain for protecting intellectual property apply in real use cases DEIP has been working with.
Progressive protection
Blockchain enables innovators to place a set of proofs around core IP that leave no margin of any doubt for even the narrowest claims.
Use-case #1: You are working on a revolutionary new vaccine. During your product development cycle, you make numerous iterative changes to your vaccine formula. Changes occur so often that it makes it impossible to patent every new version of your product. Using progressive protection, iterative improvements are continuously captured, timestamped, and certified to provide you with extra confidence within your innovation cycle.
Secure collaboration
Blockchain establishes secure channels and evidence records for your IP assets sharing offering safe collaboration with partners, investors, and employees while exchanging confidential information, data, and documents.
Use-case #2: Your team of scientists built a living cell reprogrammed to recognize and kill cancer. You share the formula with big businesses to get funding. It discloses the main features of your product. Research funding has been delayed, refused, or granted at lower valuations by this company, which later uses your research, formulas, and methods for its own purposes.
This isn’t an uncommon scenario for scientists discovering scientific breakthroughs and sharing with additional parties. The most notable examples of evidence being: NDAs, technology transfer agreements or emails. Evidence of a non-disclosure agreement in a court is a step in the right direction, but may not comprehensively cover material aspects of the infringement. Consequently, you can have a non-disclosure agreement document without enough details to protect yourself.
With blockchain-based platforms, you can protect your digital assets before sharing them, regulate access rights, link NDA and policies to sensitive IP assets, avoid data leaks and access by unauthorized parties.
Extensive IP safety matters
Legal matters alone might not suffice to protect your intellectual property. Additional administrative and technical matters are required in order to make sure your intellectual property is safe.
Use-case #3: A company has a lot of innovators and science departments working together to deliver breakthrough research to the market. Access to data inside the company is crucial to progress faster. But not all the data should be available to everyone – for example, device designs and specifications should be available only to the hardware department. To avoid data leaks and access by unauthorized parties, limit access to critical information to specific departments or individuals.
These examples prove that blockchain technology has the potential to shake up the world of intellectual property. With its relatively low cost of maintenance, increased transparency, lessened administrative burden and resilience to fraud, blockchain is an attractive prospect in protecting IP rights. Lawyers and legal entities dealing with IP protection are among the professionals who will be among the first to reap the most benefits.
About DEIP IP Ledger:
DEIP IP Ledger is a part of DEIP’s ecosystem of products in DEIP Open Innovation Network. DEIP includes products built around IP assets allowing extraction of the maximum value: monetize IP, establish partnerships and collaboration using automated contracts (like NDAs, partnership agreements, etc.), find subject matter experts to support your projects, make unbiased screening and evaluation of innovation for agile decision making and funding.
When you first sit down to devise a plan for your business, you may consider the idea of becoming a mogul overtaking the international scene, without actually thinking about the process and potential obstacles at hand. In fact, expanding your business to another jurisdiction can take up to ten months, depending on the duration of getting the appropriate licence as required for your business, by which to do so.
Now we know that empires aren’t built overnight, but we also know that waiting for official sign off from regulatory authorities can unnecessarily prolong things and disrupt your well-constructed business development plan. Well, there could be a ground-breaking solution to this. Speaking to Royce Lane – Senior Partner at PRO LAW INTERNATIONAL – we learn about a newly developed method of obtaining a licence that will help you, almost instantly, expand your business internationally.
One of the most vital steps when expanding internationally is checking everything is compliant with the country’s legal requirements. This means obtaining the right licences and permits for the country, and perhaps for the particular city that your company may be situated in.
For example, imagine you want to expand your crypto exchange business. The cryptocurrency sector is ever-evolving and changing and many jurisdictions are yet to formally define the process via its financial regulator, yet in countries where there is more certainty around crypto, such as the USA, Japan or the UK, there are different processes and licences needed.
Let’s say you want to expand your UK crypto business to the US. In the UK, you will need to register with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), the national regulator that licenses non-fiat currency exchange businesses; some crypto businesses may be able to obtain an e-license or an e-money licence. The FCA guidance also states that entities which are engaged in crypto-related activities and fall under existing financial regulations for derivatives require authorisation.
To license a crypto business in the UK, you need to[1]:
Measures to combat terrorism and money laundering has led to licensing a cryptocurrency exchange taking a long time. For example, in the case of Wirex, the procedure took 9 months[2].
In the US, however, opening a crypto exchange service would be classified as a money services business (MSB) and hence would require a money transmitter licence. This means that exchanges need to:
Royce dubs this as his “Genius Formula” which now potentially allows his clients to use the original licence to be recognised in other jurisdictions.
On top of this, each state may have its own set of requirements and rules, so needless to say, it will take a while for everything to be finalised and authorised.
The two jurisdictions have different licences, processes and requirements for you to expand your crypto exchange. Royce says he has found a way to lessen the time it takes for you to be up and running in the new jurisdiction, but how is that possible? Speaking to him, we reveal more about his innovative idea that has simplified a somewhat complicated process to save business owners a lot of time.
He tells us that he has created a method that enables companies to use their nationally issued licence to be recognised in other jurisdictions. This will enable that particular licence to potentially become a worldwide licence – quickening the process behind expanding internationally.
He states: “No longer do you have to obtain licencing in one jurisdiction to then repeat the same process when you want to expand elsewhere. When your business grows, you usually have to re-do the same licence application for the other jurisdiction(s).”
Royce dubs this as his “Genius Formula” which now potentially allows his clients to use the original licence to be recognised in other jurisdictions.
But is there such a demand for multi-jurisdictional licences? The globe is becoming one centralised place, so a uniform process has the potential to be positively welcomed. In his field of expertise, Royce tells us how he foresees the day where there will be an international licencing body (ILB), which, he says “would be a portfolio held perhaps by the United Nations, where licences that are duly recognised by this body could automatically be used within that recognised jurisdiction, worldwide.
“Today we have a variety of jurisdictions, and, let’s say, you need to obtain different authorisation from the USA and Canada. Tomorrow, with the rise of globalisation, the two jurisdictions may just be the Earth and the Moon – this may sound farfetched, but, after all, residential rights are already being sold on the Moon.
“My formula for an international licence has simply brought a possible eventual act, more forward in time.”
“We have an unused Company set up and sitting on our shelf, called, let’s say, ABC Ltd” explains Royce.
How LARCO is changing the game
What does a ‘LARCO’ licence cover? Royce states LARCO is a ‘unique service where business people who require licencing can purchase a shelf company with already approved licences annexed to it’. This system allows you to purchase the company and potentially gain same-day licencing.
The aim is to eradicate delays and excessive legal bills. If we take our crypto exchange company above as an example, with new unused companies with licenses attached to said companies, you needn’t wait nine months or more for the approval to begin your business venture in the USA. The LARCO licence goes with the Shelf Company, then LARCO works with local authorities in other jurisdictions to obtain regulator recognition, to meet the demands of today’s centralizing world.
“We have an unused Company set up and sitting on our shelf, called, let’s say, ABC Ltd” explains Royce.
“ABC Ltd has already got an approved licence duly annexed and our client buys the company off the shelf, which means they have an approved licence ready to use from day one. Within 25 days, ABC Ltd is fully transferred to the client and then we work to apply our formula to seek official recognition elsewhere” he says.
This process is suited for particular industries, however. Royce tells us the most ideal and popular industries are: Online gaming, private or public funding, FX brokering, crypto exchange or investment.
What is wrong with the current system?
Speaking to Royce, he shares that the common time frame for obtaining a business licence to expand abroad can take eight to ten months. The conventional method of moving internationally also runs the risk of causing licence requests being rejected. Royce tells us that “around 20% of licences are rejected, usually due to an inexperienced lawyer incorrectly assessing the case, or due to a bad regulator who failed to observe the due process principles, thus progressing to judicially review the matter before the court.”
Royce’s team help you pick what licence you need for your particular business, as well as having a LARCO officer assigned to you for three months during the expansion process to ensure a smooth transition of ownership.
Do we have reason to be sceptical?
Some may be sceptical with the idea, but to ensure that no one takes advantage of the system to allow fraudulent activity to occur, there are conditions of the licence that must be met. Companies will also still need to apply for other separate licences, for example, if they need a liquor licence.
Royce reassures us, by saying that all licences are recognised and accepted by the jurisdiction’s regulators, which is confirmed by an acceptance letter.
“Yes, with this process being new, some are sceptical. But the regulator’s letter removes the scepticism.
“In essence, for example, the licence annexed to the shelf company you purchase may be issued by the EU, leaving you to be sceptical about using it in Singapore, for example. Part of the process we offer is to secure a letter from the Singapore Authority recognising this licence as suitable for use in Singapore.”
Royce’s team help you pick what licence you need for your particular business, as well as having a LARCO officer assigned to you for three months during the expansion process to ensure a smooth transition of ownership.
And in order to ensure that the client requesting a LARCO licence is a legitimate business wanting to expand their company for valid reasons, Royce uses agencies like “World-Check” and/or “Verified” for any Criminal or Civil history. Taking due diligence seriously in this area is important, and Royce states that his staff obtain Notaries KYC records from clients, to gain as much detail to ensure they will be a suitable transferee. Royce hastened to add that, “ Of course client’s criminal/civil history is private and we only share such information with our clients directly.”
Royce's Journey into Law
Royce Lane, also known for his tenacity and often referred to as “The Bulldog Lawyer”, started his journey into the legal sphere in 1983. After growing up in New Zealand, he worked in a family business with his father for four years before joining the NZ Police Force, Highway Patrol in Sept 1973, where he served for 15 years. During this time, he was a working student attending Auckland University and was thereafter assigned to police prosecutions.
After venturing to Asia, he worked at various law firms like one in the Philippines for five years. On 26th February 1996, he was shot in the head at close blank range by a gunman that was hired by a disgruntled losing opponent in a Court case that Royce acted in. After 10 days hospitalisation and recovery after the bullet was removed, Royce was surprised to learn that the local Police Chief reported nothing had been done at all, and that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) was not aware of this highly published case. Suspecting corruption and derelict officials, he launched his own investigation. Ten months later, he found the gunman and took him into the NBI who was charged for frustrated murder, along with the other masterminds involved.
In 1999 he was Chief General Counsel for a multinational based at Hong Kong, which was operating in 52 countries, with six legal staff reporting to him. In 2006, he retired on a garden pension for two years, and in 2009, he attained World Pro Status with a Tour Card in his much-loved game of Cue Sports, attaining two world titles, undefeated to date.
In 2013, he returned to the legal sector as General Counsel for large companies. In 2017 Royce founded Pro Law International, today with offices at London, Hong Kong and The Caribbean, with Legal Officers on board from Europe to Asia.
His firm focuses on General Counsel work, working with large companies in China, related to Alibaba. In addition, his firm has two products, one called LARCO and the other called DualPass.
[1] https://prifinance.com/en/cryptocurrency-license/uk/
[2] https://lawstrust.com/en/licence/finance/crypto-license/gb
The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is an institution mandated by the EU with the notion of protecting the Union's financial interest. It is an administrative body which investigates fraud against the EU budget, corruption and serious misconduct within the European institutions, and develops anti-fraud policies. But are their investigations thorough and meet legal requirements, or do they merely result in administrative bodies paying out a lot of money for an unjust, poorly conducted investigation into fraud?
How straightforward are OLAF’s investigations?
Many people are not aware that in addition to its responsibilities, OLAF can conduct investigations on fraud reported by people who choose to remain anonymous – something that is not common amongst other administrative institutions. This, however, can be quite costly. Once an investigation is launched, those working on it will, in most cases, travel across the globe – to wherever the investigation takes them. The anonymous nature of the signal begs the question – is this investigation economically justified if it does not achieve its desired outcome? For instance, it doesn’t uncover tax fraud, which has had a harmful impact on the EU budget.
When we talk about such investigations, it might be worth questioning whether they mainly relate to the anonymous person who reported the fraud and their interests, or whether it’s something that’s actually worth investigating. In this context, it is unclear what OLAF’s procedure is when it comes to dealing with anonymous reports and the lack of clear and precise regulation on the subject raises doubts about the investigators’ objectivity.
Anonymity provokes unjust, costly investigations
Generally speaking, all of this could make it possible for the European Anti-Fraud Office to settle personal corporate interests by working on investigations which were reported by someone who remained anonymous, whilst the person who’s being questioned faces the costs of defending their rights. I have witnessed similar cases throughout my career, namely when the court overturns a customs decision based on a report by the Anti-Fraud Office or information received from them during the inspection, which suggests that the alleged breach of customs legislation is not present.
In this case, the customs authorities issued their decision based on the information and allegations they received from the Anti-Fraud Office, but if the court was to reverse that decision, it was the customs authorities who would have had to cover the court fees. This, in turn, is not fair, because customs authorities are not equipped to verify whether the allegations made by the Anti-Fraud Office are true and issue their statements based on the information which OLAF provides. However, if it turns out that the allegations are not substantiated by due process of law, the court would overturn the decisions of the customs authorities, but still cannot award the costs of the case to OLAF. Thus, a costly investigation conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office, whose allegations were not supported by evidence, could result in unnecessary costs for local administration – mainly because it is obliged to not question OLAF’s reports.
What this example illustrates is that instead of investigating fraud, OLAF could sometimes harm national administrative bodies, whilst trying to gather additional funds for the EU budget.
Is OLAF economically justified?
What’s interesting is that there’s not an institution which keeps track of the expenditures that national administrations have incurred when a court has overturned their decisions based on OLAF’s reports or inspections. What I oftentimes wonder is whether the sole existence of this institution is economically justified.
In all cases of my practice, the evidence presented by OLAF in support of their allegations of tax fraud has not been suitable or there hasn’t been any evidence to support their allegations at all. This may be connected to OLAF’s employees’ lack of understanding of national laws and the requirements of the procedural laws regarding the validity of evidence, however, considering that there are requirements for national administrative bodies to issue acts for the collection of public debt (customs, tax, etc.), they need to comply with national laws. Otherwise, the work of OLAF’s employees becomes meaningless due to the incompatibility of their presented documents with the procedural rules of a given member state, and sometimes, even with EU laws.
The impact of not understanding EU case law
In this article I have chosen to refrain from using specific examples from my practice, however, the one thing I’d like to bring to your attention is that OLAF still doesn’t understand the European Court of Justice’s case-law: that export declarations for goods are not documents which can prove a higher customs value. When a certain item is being imported into the EU, there needs to be an export declaration for goods, drawn up and signed by the exporter, whilst the importer needs to submit an import declaration. An export declaration is a private document which has no evidential significance. When conducting their investigations, however, OLAF’s employees continuously ask exporters for this piece of documentation, instead of documents which can prove higher customs value. In their essence, export declarations are not evidence of payments, but OLAF continuously misunderstands their sole purpose.
My intention is not to argue that the EU does not need OLAF altogether, however, I believe that it could perhaps revise the institution’s functions and powers.
Naturally, it’s the court that carries out the administration of justice in accordance with the rule of law – as mentioned earlier, OLAF is simply an administrative body whose actions need to be kept track of. It’s a common misconception that its reports should be trusted without questioning anything they claim, when in fact they should be subject to judicial review.
