Los Angeles, January 24, 2007 – Kaye Scholer LLP announced today that highly respected lawyer, Dominique R. Shelton, joins the firm’s Los Angeles Office. Shelton was most recently a partner in the Los Angeles office of Folger, Levin & Kahn LLP.

Shelton focuses her practice on complex commercial litigation with particular experience in the areas of unfair competition, intellectual property, antitrust and general commercial litigation.

"We are delighted to welcome Dominique to Kaye Scholer,"said Los Angeles office managing partner Michael Fernhoff. "She is a top quality litigator and her specific expertise in complex litigation, including antitrust, copyright, trademark, and trade dress is a great addition to the firm's already leading litigation department."

In addition to her various professional affiliations, Shelton is an active member of the community, currently serving as the 2005-2006 President of Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (WLALA), the oldest and one of the largest local women's bar associations in the country. She is a Life Member of both Black Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (BWL) and California Women Lawyers Association (CWL), having served as a past-member of both organizations' Board of Directors. In addition, Shelton participated in the National Urban League’s Black Executive Exchange Program "BEEP" wherein she mentored students attending historically black colleges in Mississippi, Atlanta and Los Angeles.

Shelton received her B.A. from Brown University and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center where she was notes editor of the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics.

About Kaye Scholer

Kaye Scholer refers to Kaye Scholer LLP and its affiliates, with offices in New York, Chicago, Frankfurt, London, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Washington, D.C., and West Palm Beach. Founded in New York City in 1917, Kaye Scholer now includes some 500 attorneys and represents public and private companies, governmental entities, financial institutions, and other organizations in matters around the world. Additional information is available on the firm’s website: www.kayescholer.com.

U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, said Tuesday that President Bush’s State of the Union address was bipartisan in both approach and appeal.

"I think the president understands, for him to get something done in the next two years, he is going to have to be bipartisan," Upton said in a telephone interview following the speech.

The Michigan Republican said the president’s tone was genuine and positive, and drew support from both Democrats and Republicans.

 
"You didn’t have the normal teeter-totter," Upton said of what he called the "one side is up, one side is down" response that often marks State of the Union speeches.

Upton praised the president’s energy-saving proposals, but said he does not support an increase in American troops in Iraq.

"As much as I’d like to think a troop surge would work, I don’t believe that it will," said Upton.

Upton said he supports the bipartisan plan to begin the phase-out of troops at the end of this year.

The lawmaker’s comments were among several issued by members of the area’s congressional delegation.

U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-2nd, said in a statement that, "I couldn’t agree more with the president’s message that, as lawmakers, we are here to work across party lines to provide hope and opportunity for every American."

Donnelly said he is encouraged by the president’s desire to "establish a steady and clean supply of energy that decreases our dependence on foreign oil."

"On the subject of Iraq," Donnelly said, "my greatest concern is that the additional troops that are being sent to Iraq could end up caught in the crossfire of a civil war."

Donnelly called for the establishment of specific benchmarks to achieve progress and monthly reports from U.S. generals "detailing the progress being made."

U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar said Tuesday that he is encouraged by the president’s proposals to reduce gasoline usage by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

The president also called for an increase in the supply of alternative fuels and the modernization of fuel economy standards for cars.

Lugar noted that in last year’s State of the Union address the president had declared that "America is addicted to oil," and said the president’s focus had helped spur "new thinking, new policy suggestions and a new realism."

Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., called the president’s energy plan "a positive step toward achieving energy independence," adding, "but we can do more."

Bayh said he has introduced bipartisan legislation to reduce American dependence on foreign oil and called for the president to embrace what Bayh called "our more aggressive plan."

U.S. Rep. Mark Souder, R-3rd, said he supports the president’s plan to increase the supply of renewable and alternative fuels. "But while I support the president’s efforts to secure our border and provide temporary work permits for immigrants, I oppose his plan to grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens."

Indiana Republican Party Chairman Murray Clark praised the speech and said the president’s "commitment to alternative fuels is welcome news here in Indiana."

President Bush also called on members of the Senate to give his latest judicial nominees what he labeled a "fair hearing" and a "prompt up-or-down vote," saying that he and lawmakers have a shared obligation to ensure that vacancies in the federal courts are filled.

As in the past, when large firms like 700-lawyer Simpson Thatcher announce a salary hike, others are quick to follow. Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison matched Simpson Thacher's increase to $160,000 Tuesday afternoon. Last February's increase to $145,000 was first announced by Sullivan & Cromwell, and other firms wasted little time jumping on the bandwagon. Firms generally succumb to the pressure to match salaries to remain competitive in nabbing talent from a small pool of top law students.

Simpson Thacher's decision also comes after a pay increase at a number of California firms, which upped their first-year salaries to $145,000 from $135,000. New York firms may also follow Simpson Thacher's lead in an effort to maintain the Big Apple's status as the top market for associate pay.

It's a good thing audiences like to watch ads during the Super Bowl: every year there are more of them.

According to a new report from TNS Media Intelligence, ad clutter in sports television's biggest annual event has been creeping upwards for the last 11 years.

The 2006 Super Bowl featured 47 minutes and 20 seconds worth of ads, a 30% increase over the 1996 games.

It's not hard to figure out why.

"As rights fees [for the games] have escalated, ad clutter has escalated," says Jon Swallen, senior vice president of research for TNS. "Networks can increase the price, but adding ad time is a more palatable way of making the economics work."

Despite the increased volume of ads and the gradually declining ratings for the event, Super Bowl ad prices have continued to climb. In 1987, a 30-second unit cost an advertiser $600,000. This year the same unit is expected to cost $2.6 million, a slight increase over last year's $2.5 million.

Mr. Swallen credits the price increases to savvy marketing by the networks and the National Football League, and the fact that it's harder than ever for marketers to reach a large audience.

"There's the cachet of the Super Bowl itself," he says of the pricey ads. "And it's still the single largest audience in television by a wide margin."

That's one reason the event's biggest category of advertiser isn't beer or cars, but promotional spots for the host network's own shows. Last year, 22% of all ad time in the Super Bowl was devoted to network promotions.

"Over the long haul, the potential ad revenue windfall you can generate from your regular series programming is much greater than what you can generate from a one-time event," Mr. Swallen explains.

Responding to the enormous demand for lawyers with a sound knowledge of intellectual property issues, dozens of law schools worldwide now offer specialized IP law programs and courses as a part of their LL.M. programs.

John N. Riccardi directs one of these programs – the Intellectual Property Law LL.M. program at the Boston University School of Law. Riccardi says his students get a “solid grounding in the theory behind the key doctrines of intellectual property law – in copyright, patents and trademark/unfair competition law – while also gaining exposure to some of the cutting-edge issues that individuals and enterprises face as a result of the rapid technological advances taking place throughout the world, whether in digital and information technology or the biological sciences.”

According to the US News & World Report 2006 law school survey, the top-ranked IP programs in the United States are Stanford, UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall), and George Washington University (GW Law).

Robert Brauneis, who co-directs the IP LL.M. program at GW Law, suggests one of the keys to a successful program is catering to the needs of both US- and foreign-trained lawyers, who often have different reasons for pursuing an LL.M. US-trained lawyers, for example, often come to GW to make the switch to IP law from another field of law, or to get a degree from a higher-ranking school than where they received their J.D. Foreign-trained lawyers, however, may already have lots of experience practising IP law in their home country, but want to learn more about US law or prepare for a US bar exam.

“Because we offer a large number of both US and international and comparative courses, students can choose to focus more on domestic or more on international issues”, says Brauneis. “These days, the two are also often intertwined – to understand a provision in US law, you need to understand that it was required by an international treaty, and learn something about the background of that treaty.”

“Many of our graduates who stay in the U.S. go to law firms,” says Brauneis. “You will find GW LL.M.s in most major firms with substantial IP practices, such as Finnegan Henderson, Wilson Sonsini, Foley and Lardner, Fish & Richardson, Howrey, Banner & Witcoff, Kenyon & Kenyon, and many, many others.”

“We also have graduates in government, not only at the Patent and Trademark Office but also as judicial clerks and legislative aides,” adds Brauneis. “Many are also in-house counsel in corporations, although they often start out at firms. There is a similar mix among foreign students who go back to their home countries, though the mix differs somewhat from country to country.”

The list of high-quality IP programs in the United States is perhaps too long to reproduce here, but along with the aforementioned schools, a short list would certainly also include Cardozo-Yeshiva, Duke, Santa Clara, Columbia, Houston, Franklin Pierce, John Marshall, Case Western Reserve University, Chicago-Kent, DePaul, University of Washington (Seattle), Michigan State, and Fordham.

There are also excellent IP programs to be found in the United Kingdom, including those at Glasgow, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and the University of London schools (Queen Mary, King’s, UCL). Perhaps the leading specialized program on the European continent is the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC) in Germany, which is a cooperative project of the Max Planck Institute, the universities of Munich and Augsburg, and GW Law.

Some LL.M. programs – including those at Berkeley, Stanford, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Ottawa – give students the opportunity to focus squarely on information technology or “law and technology".

Whichever of these programs you might choose, professors in the field agree that the demand for IP lawyers and IP LL.M. graduates shows no signs of abating in the coming years.

“I believe that the future career prospects for LL.M. graduates in IP will remain strong,” says Jeffrey M. Samuels of the University of Akron, the home of another specialized IP LL.M. program in the United States.

“The level of activity in the areas of patent, trademark, and copyright law, and the importance of IP to the national and global economy, will require an increasing number of attorneys well versed in this area of the law,” adds Samuels. “I would anticipate that the demand for IP attorneys will increase over the years, given the expanding scope of patentable subject matter, the advent of new technologies, and increased globalization.”

John Riccardi from Boston University agrees: “I have every reason to believe that the demand for US intellectual property law studies among foreign-trained lawyers will stay strong – and even increase – particularly among the rapidly growing Asian economies of China and India,” says Riccardi.

“As US businesses expand into these markets, they will need competent local counsel that understands local laws, as well as the US perspective. This is not just in Asia – it's around the world – but the surge in interest among Asian economies within the past five years has been dramatic.”

The US House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill Tuesday to deny retirement pensions to any member of Congress "convicted of any of certain offenses," including fraud, bribery and perjury. Currently, federal lawmakers can only be stripped of their benefits for treason or espionage. The new legislation, passed by a vote of 431-0, adds to the list the crimes of bribery, acting as a foreign agent, breaking restrictions on becoming a lobbyist, committing perjury, convincing another person to commit perjury, and conspiracy to commit one of these crimes. Some legislators even sought to go further, including Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) who failed to secure passage of an amendment that would have also put crimes such as tax evasion, wire fraud, and racketeering on the list. The House bill still needs to be reconciled with the Senate's version before a final vote can be held. Neither the House nor Senate version of the bill is retroactive.

Tuesday's unanimous vote signals House lawmakers' desire to improve their image after a year in which several bribery and influence-peddling scandals made headlines. Most notably, former US Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) was forced to resign [JURIST report] and former US Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) was sentenced to prison for their connections to lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Meanwhile, former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) received a record sentence in March 2006 for taking bribes from a defense contractor, and Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) came under investigation in a separate bribery investigation.