Recent Posts in ‘Expert Guest Blog Entries’
« Older Entries3 No cost ways to drive traffic to your website
December 21st, 2011
in Advertising & Marketing, Expert Guest Blog Entries |
Expert Article by Deborah McMurray
It’s almost New Year’s Eve. I am a believer in making New Year’s resolutions – I make them every year. When Merrilyn Astin Tarlton and Joan Feldman asked me to write a year-end blog post for their popular blog Attorney at Work, I sought to write one that would inspire readers to make a New Year’s resolution to focus on making their websites more dynamic. I challenged myself to come up with three no cost or low cost ways to do so – that are assured of driving more traffic to your website.
This article below first appeared on December 14, 2011 in Attorney at Work.
(You can subscribe to the popular (and free) daily Attorney at Work email on their website. It covers the full gamut of marketing, business development, communication and other practice management advice.)
Your 2012 New Year’s Resolution: “I resolve to do these 3 things to make our firm website more dynamic. (Oh, and lose weight and call my mother more often.)”
Do you want to find a way to compete better at a low or no cost? Are you ready to be viewed as the most relevant expert in your field? Then choose to follow through with this New Year’s resolution to make your website more dynamic. Here are 3 things you can do yourself – or with a little help from your marketing team. The only out-of-pocket cost is a little bit of your time, and the results will be as encouraging as losing that extra 10 pounds.
1. What is the freshness date of your content?
If you launched a website refresh in 2011, you may think your Internet work is done. The fact is, those design and content updates are sooo, well, 2011.
Destination news sites have spoiled us when it comes to the currency and relevancy of content. WSJ.com, CNN and NYTimes.com are just three of hundreds of news sites that offer not just today’s news, but this hour’s breaking news.
It’s impossible for most law firms to meet this high standard of currency. Still, every law firm should critically review content at least every year, if not more often. With potentially thousands of pages of content, how do you slog through it and test its relevance? Here’s how.
a. Choose 30 keywords that are important to your firm and practice.
b. Plug them one-by-one into your site search and view the search results. If you represent multinational companies, for example, “FCPA” should lead to a page of results that are both up-to-date and important.
c. Answer the questions, “Do the search results present our experience in the best light? Do they highlight our best competencies?” If news articles or e-alerts appear in the search results that are outdated or irrelevant, delete them.
Every piece of old content causes a visitor to question whether you and your firm are stale. It taints the perceived efficacy of the good content you have.
2. Do your offline credentialing activities drive targeted, qualified traffic to your website?
Every (I really mean every) speech and presentation you give should drive traffic to specific pages of your website. Write your speech with this in mind. Tell a story about a current event that can be analogized to your specific subject matter, use keywords that are in the news and in conversation and relate to your practice, and ensure that these top keywords appear in your bio and practice description (and that they produce relevant search results if a visitor searches by them).
Include various URLs in your presentation materials that answer your audience’s questions – not your main domain, but interior pages, such as www.firmname.com/fcpa/india or www.firmname.com/ThomasJones.
3. Take this one step further – create QR codes for these important website pages – and include the QR codes in your handouts and on your business card.
Quick Response codes are becoming ubiquitous in certain fields – automotive, real estate, on movie posters near train stations and on products advertised via airport dioramas – but they are seldom used by lawyers as a marketing tool.
Quick Response codes are basically two-dimensional bar codes that can be read by a mobile phone camera equipped with a code-reading app. Once the QR code is scanned, for instance, the web address embedded in the image pops up on the phone’s browser, saving the device’s owner some typing. Here is a short primer if you aren’t as familiar as you’d like to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_codes
While they look like hieroglyphics, they are a one-click pathway to the pages of your website, such as your bio, blog or E-alert library that are the most relevant to what you do. Instantly create them for new pages on your site to alert visitors and drive traffic to your latest resources.
Here is your step-by-step QR “how-to:”
a. Download a QR Reader app to your Smart Phone and tablet devices
b. Open the website page or blog post you want to promote
c. Copy the URL of that page
d. Go to http://qrcode.kaywa.com/ - Look at the example below – Choose your content type: a URL for the specific web page, a piece of text, your phone number or a text message. Next, type in the URL for that bit of info, choose the output size for your QR code (S, M, L or XL – just like buying a sweater), click Generate! and Voila – it will appear in the box on the left. In this example, I have generated a QR code for ourContent Pilot Blogazine – and did so in less than 15 seconds.
e. Save the QR code to your Pictures file on your computer (label it, so you can keep track of them), then liberally insert it into your print and presentation materials.
f. To test it, open your Smart Phone QR Reader app, scan your new QR code and it should launch the website or blog page on your device.
Stay tuned for more tips and tools to make your website the centerpiece of your reputation management and business development. Good luck with your New Year’s resolutions!
Tags: Business Development, Law Firm Marketing, Social media, Web
No Comments »
Christopher R. Debski
December 20th, 2011
in Employment & Benefits, Expert Guest Blog Entries, Expert Guest Blogs |
Biography
Christopher R. Debski is an Associate with Roetzel & Andress, LPA which maintains 13 offices in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, New York and Washington, D.C. Mr. Debski focuses his practice in the area of workers’ compensation, and represents clients in the fields of construction, government, health care, manufacturing and retail.
Mr. Debski earned his B.A. from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from The University of Akron, School of Law.
An OSBA-certified Workers’ Compensation Specialist, Mr. Debski presented a “Workers’ Compensation Subrogation” program in September 2010. He is a member of the Akron Bar Association, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, Ohio State Bar Association and the Self Insured Group of Ohio. Mr. Debski is admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio and U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.
Expert Article
Contact Christopher R. Debski
Email: cdebski@ralaw.com
ARE PATENT LITIGATION ALERT: FEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS ANOTHER COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED METHOD TO BE PATENT-ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 101
December 19th, 2011
in Expert Guest Blog Entries, Expert Guest Blogs, Intellectual Property, Legal, Litigation, Telecoms & Technology |
Expert Article by Charles R. Macedo and David P. Goldberg
On September 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued another decision on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-1544, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2011). This decision, authored by Chief Judge Rader, shows the Federal Circuit’s commitment to continue to clarify that in order for claims to be patent-eligible under Section 101, they need only pass through a “coarse eligibility filter.”
The claims at issue in Ultramercial concerned a method for monetizing and distributing copyrighted material over the Internet. The district court found that the claims at issue were invalid because they did not claim patent-eligible subject matter. See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. CV-09-06918, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93453, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010). Despite references in the claim to the “internet,” the district court found that the claims were not tied to a “machine” and did not “transform” an article to a different state or thing. Rather, the district court found that the claims at issue were directed to the “abstract” idea “that one can use advertisement as an exchange or currency.” Id. at *17.
On appeal, applying the “coarse” filter test set forth in Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft, 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court finding, and concluded that the claims at issue were patent-eligible subject matter.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s admonitions in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3227-28 (2010), Ultramercial rejected efforts to limit the Section 101 analysis to the “machine-or-transformation test”:
While machine-or-transformation logic served well as a tool to evaluate the subject matter of Industrial Age processes, that test has far less application to the inventions of the Information Age. See [Bilski, 130 S. Ct.] at 3227–28 (“[I]n deciding whether previously unforeseen inventions qualify as patentable ‘processes,’ it may not make sense to require courts to confine themselves to asking the questions posed by the machine-or-transformation test. Section 101′s terms suggest that new technologies may call for new inquiries.”). Technology without anchors in physical structures and mechanical steps simply defy easy classification under the machine-or-transformation categories. As the Supreme Court suggests, mechanically applying that physical test “risk[s] obscuring the larger object of securing patents for valuable inventions without transgressing the public domain.” Id. at 3228.
Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *9-10.
In determining whether the claimed invention, a method for monetizing and distributing copyrighted material over the Internet, was directed to abstract ideas under Section 101, the Court reemphasized that (a) inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace and (b) inventions that disclose practical applications of ideas are likely to be patentable. In so doing, Ultramercial reiterated the “manifestly abstract” test set forth inResearch Corp. Technologies:
In sum, § 101 is a “dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions.” J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi–Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 135, 122 S. Ct. 593, 151 L.Ed.2d 508 (2001). With this in mind, this court does “not presume to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. [Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.], 627 F.3d [859,] 868 [(Fed. Cir. 2010)].
Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *10-11.
Finally, the Federal Circuit distinguished the claims of Ultramercial with its prior precedent inCybersource. Here, the Court found the claims at hand patent eligible because the claims specified a number of steps “likely to require intricate and complex computer programming” and they necessarily involved interaction with others on “the Internet and [in] a cyber-market environment.” Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *14. Thus, “[u]nlike the claims inCyberSource [Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16871 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011)], the claims here require, among other things, controlled interaction with a consumer via an Internet website, something far removed from purely mental steps.” Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *18.
We will continue to monitor and report on Section 101 cases, and encourage you to review the publications and events page of our firm website (www.arelaw.com) for more information. Also, please feel free to contact one of our firm’s attorneys to learn more.
Charles R. Macedo
December 19th, 2011
in Expert Guest Blog Entries, Expert Guest Blogs, Intellectual Property, Legal, Litigation |
Biography
Charles R. Macedo advises and litigates in all areas of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark and copyright law, with a special emphasis in complex litigation. He also assists clients in obtaining, maintaining and enforcing patent and trademark portfolios. He has successfully recovered domain names registered to others using clients’ trademarks.
Mr. Macedo is the author of The Corporate Insider’s Guide to U.S. Patent Practice, published by Oxford University Press and is frequently published by the Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, IP Law 360, and other publications. Mr. Macedo has been cited as an authority on intellectual property issues by various news media including the Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones, BNA, Bloomberg, Inside Counsel, Managing Intellectual Property, Technology Transfer Tactics.
Identifying vulnerabilities and considering variations on design concepts, Mr. Macedo can develop patent strategies intended to maximize patent protection and prevent infringement challenges from arising in the future. He has represented clients in intellectual property litigation and other types of matters involving a wide range of subject matter including photomasks, angular rate sensors, methods of taking checks over the telephone, financial service products, internet websites, inventory control systems, cosmetics, nickel metal hydride batteries, wind mills, nuclear waste disposal, green house gasses reclamation, cell phones, fax machines, answering machines, telephone switching equipment, inflatable chairs, money market mutual funds, deposit sweep programs, designer handbags, apparel, cathode ray tube displays, projectors, DRAM, semiconductor chips, to name a few.
In the internet, computer and business related invention arena, even before the State Street case was decided, Mr. Macedo successfully defended the Discover Card division of Morgan, Stanley from charges of patent infringement and obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement. Mr. Macedo also acts as regular intellectual property counsel to Double Rock Corporation and its related entities. Mr. Macedo was principal attorney on amicus submissions in Bilski v. Doll to the U.S. Supreme Court and In re Bilski to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit. He is frequently consulted on developing effective patent strategies for computer implemented and business related inventions for financial service companies, Software-As-A-Service providers and clients with other internet and computer based inventions.
In the field of trademarks, Mr. Macedo has enforced and defended against trademark assertions involving a wide range of products and services including financial service providers, non-profit organizations, cosmetic companies, luxury retailers of designer handbags, and department store house brands.
He was the sole law clerk to Hon. Daniel M. Friedman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 1989 – 1990.
He has published papers, and lectures on various topics and has been the recipient of the prestigious AIPLA Robert C. Watson Award.
Mr. Macedo holds bachelors and masters degrees in physics from The Catholic University of America and a law degree from Columbia Law School, both of which he graduated with honors.
Expert Article
Contact Charles R. Macedo
Direct: 212 336 8074
Main: 212 336 8000
Fax: 212 336 8001
Email: cmacedo@arelaw.com
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Holds That Dual Persona Doctrine Did Not Constitute a Valid Exception to Exclusivity Provision of Workers’ Compensation Act
December 16th, 2011
in Employment & Benefits, Expert Guest Blog Entries, Expert Guest Blogs, Litigation |
Expert Article by Kevin Cooper
In Soto v Nabisco, Inc., et al., 2011 WL 5831369 (Pa.Super.), 2011 PA Super 249, released on November 21, 2011, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County which dismissed Roque Soto’s third-party liability claim based upon the employer statutory immunity under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA).
Mr. Soto began his employment with Nabisco at its Philadelphia Bakery sometime around 1999-2000. In July 2001, Nabisco merged into Kraft and ceased to exist as a separate company. Due to the merger, Soto became an employee of Kraft. On November 1, 2007, Soto injured his arm and hands while operating a Ritz Cracker Cutting Machine designed and built by Nabisco, but used exclusively by Kraft employees since the merger. There was no dispute between the parties that the accident occurred within the course and scope of Soto’s employment and caused amputation of his left arm and a de-gloving wound and avulsion injuries to his right hand.
After his injury, Soto filed a third-party tort claim against Kraft and various other entities claiming that under the “dual persona” doctrine, Pennsylvania’s WCA allows third-party tort recovery – although the employer is the ultimate payor – if the employer has a distinct and separate role that could subject it to liability for injuries to an employee. Soto defined Kraft’s “dual persona” nature as (1) his employer and (2) the successor in interest to Nabisco, the manufacturer of the defective machine that caused his injuries at work. Soto also maintained that Kraft’s position as successor in interest to Nabisco exposed Kraft to third-party liability in this context.
In its analysis of the case, the Superior Court noted that the only thing that changed in Soto’s employment situation was that his paycheck now came from Kraft instead of Nabisco. He continued to work in the same capacity at the same location. The Court found that the Ritz Cracker Cutting Machine was equipment Nabisco had manufactured specially for cutting Ritz crackers, it was used solely by Nabisco employees, and later used solely by Kraft employees; it was not available to the public at large. At no time was the special equipment sold to an outside company or put in the stream of commerce; it was merely transferred from Nabisco to Kraft by virtue of the merger.
Ultimately, in affirming the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, the Superior Court held as follows:
Were Pennsylvania courts to accept the “dual persona” doctrine as a valid exception to the exclusivity of the WCA, the doctrine would not apply in this case for the following reasons. If [Soto] had been injured while working for Nabisco, workers compensation would be his sole remedy; any third-party claim against Nabisco as the manufacturer of the equipment would fail. To allow [Soto] to sue Kraft, solely as the successor in interest to Nabisco, for third-party damages effectively enlarges [Soto’s] remedies as a result of the merger, in contravention of the “dual persona” doctrine, which was designed to preserve but not expand liability. If Nabisco as the employer would have no third-party liability beyond workers compensation, then Kraft as the successor employer should have no third-party liability under the circumstances of this case. Declining to apply the “dual persona” doctrine as an exception to the exclusivity of Pennsylvania’s WCA in the present context, we ensure the preservation but prevent the expansion of liabilities or remedies.
The Superior Court’s holding that the dual persona doctrine is inapplicable in cases where the plaintiff would not have been able to bring suit against the predecessor company even if a merger had never occurred is in accord with decisions by courts from Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Washington, all of which are cited in the Court’s decision.
Roetzel & Andress will continue to provide further information and guidance to assist you as developments arise in this matter. If you should have any questions, please contact any of our offices to discuss this matter further with one of our workers’ compensation attorneys.
Tags: Dual Persona, Employer Statutory Immunity, Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation Act, Tort Recovery
No Comments »
Kevin Cooper
December 16th, 2011
in Employment & Benefits, Expert Guest Blog Entries, Expert Guest Blogs |
Biography
Kevin Cooper is an Associate with Roetzel & Andress, LPA which maintains 13 offices in Ohio, Florida, New York and Washington, D.C. Mr. Cooper’s practice is focused in the area of defending workers’ compensation and unemployment claims, business immigration and all related litigation. He represents and counsels large and small companies before the Industrial Commission of Ohio, and has litigated numerous cases in both state and federal courts. Mr. Cooper’s clients have included corporations and individuals in the manufacturing, retail, health care, construction, and energy and utilities industries.
Mr. Cooper is a member of the Toledo Bar Association, serving as Secretary of the Workers’ Compensation Committee; Cleveland Metro Bar Association; Ohio State Bar Association; and American Bar Association.
Expert Articles
Contact Kevin Cooper
Tel:419.254.5257
Tags: business immigration, Litigation, unemployment claims
No Comments »
EEOC Permitted to Subpoena Documents Showing Workers Forbidden From Discussing Pay
December 15th, 2011
in Employment & Benefits, Expert Guest Blog Entries |
Expert Article by Emily Ciecka Wilcheck
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York inEEOC v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., W.D.N.Y., No. 1:11-mc-00028, 2011 WL 5282622, recently enforced a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to Sterling Jewelers Inc. (doing business as Jared the Galleria of Jewelry) requesting information on the company’s policies barring employees from discussing their pay, as well as information on employees disciplined under such policies.
Diane Thielker, a former employee of Sterling, filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that she was discriminated against in pay and promotions because of her age and gender. The EEOC sued Sterling on behalf of Ms. Thielker, alleging that Sterling engaged in unfair employment practices nationwide by maintaining a system for making promotions and compensation decisions that is excessively subjective and has a disparate impact on female sales employees.
As part of the investigation into her charge, Ms. Thielker provided the EEOC with a copy of a counseling report issued to her by Sterling. This counseling report stated in part as follows:
Any discussion regarding payroll need only to be made between said employee and mgr. Having inappropriate discussions only contribute to and fosters ill will amongst team members as well as being a direct violation of Sterlings [sic] code of conduct.
The report also included Ms. Thielker’s comments that she believed that she was being discriminated against based upon her gender due to the fact that the company paid male employees more than it paid female employees.
A few months after receiving a copy of the report, the EEOC served a subpoena upon Sterling requesting information on (1) the code of conduct referred to in the counseling report and any other policies prohibiting employees from discussing pay; (2) all disciplinary notices, reports, or warnings reflecting enforcement of Sterling’s policy prohibiting discussions of pay; and (3) information related to the individuals disciplined under such policy.
In upholding the EEOC’s right to enforcement of the subpoena, the court held that the nationwide scope of the information requested was relevant to the EEOC’s pattern or practice claims against Sterling, and legitimately arose from statements on the counseling report indicating that Sterling had a company-wide policy prohibiting discussions about pay. Significantly, the court further concluded that, even without the counseling report referencing such a policy, information regarding Sterling’s nationwide policies prohibiting discussions of pay is relevant to Thielker’s individual charge.
Tags: Age Discrimination, Code of Conduct, Discussing Pay, EEOC, Gender Discrimination, Subpoena
No Comments »
Emily Ciecka Wilcheck
December 15th, 2011
in Employment & Benefits, Expert Guest Blog Entries |
Biography
Emily Ciecka Wilcheck is an Associate with Roetzel & Andress, LPA which maintains 13 offices in Ohio, Florida, Illinois, New York and Washington, D.C. Ms. Wilcheck focuses her practice on employment litigation and general corporate litigation with a special emphasis on wrongful termination claims, restrictive covenants, trade secret violations and unfair competition/tortious interference matters. She has presented on various topics such as sexual harassment policies and enforcement, documenting the disciplinary process, terminations and hiring practices.
Ms. Wilcheck earned her B.B.A. magna cum laude from The University of Toledo, where she also earned her M.B.A. She received her J.D. cum laude from The University of Toledo, College of Law.
She is a member of the Ohio State Bar Association, the Toledo Women’s Bar Association and the Ohio Women’s Bar Association, where she served on the Supreme Court Judicial Ratings Committee (2010-2011). Ms. Wilcheck is admitted to practice law in the state of Ohio, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit and U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.
Expert Article:
Contact Emily Ciecka Wilcheck
Tel: 419.254.5260
Email: ewilcheck@ralaw.com
Richik Sarkar, Ulmer & Berne LLP
December 14th, 2011
in Expert Guest Blog Entries, Financial Services, Litigation, Regulatory Compliance and Trade |
Biography
Richik is a commercial litigator and mediator with recognized expertise in the areas of contracts, commercial relations, business torts, financial services law, consumer law, the Uniform Commercial Code, corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and real estate law. He has represented public and private entities of all sizes, including: a wide variety of small & minority-owned businesses, sports & media agencies, investment firms, technology companies, real estate & economic development corporations, governments, utilities, and financial institutions. Working with such a diverse client base, he has become accomplished in, among other things, the areas of RICO, fraud, business interference, director & officer liability, fiduciary liability, unfair competition, shareholder disputes, licensing, copyrights, lender liability, property tax valuation, federal preemption, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the False Claims Act, class action defense, and general business counseling. For the past four years, he has been recognized as an “Ohio Super Lawyer Rising Star” by Law & Politics magazine (2005-2007, 2009, 2011).
Expert Article
-
Department of Justice Contends Due Diligence Failures Can be the Basis for False Claims Act Liability
-
Dodd-Frank Act Increases Disclosure Requirements for Financial Institutions and Other Businesses Which Make Decisions Based on Credit Scores
-
Does the Use of Foreign Call Centers Violate Privacy and Consumer Protection Laws?
-
Ohio Supreme Court to Decide if Mortgage Servicers are Subject to Ohio Consumer Laws and Penalties
Contact Richik Sarkar
Phone: 216.583.7352
Fax: 216.583.7353
Email: rsarkar@ulmer.com
