Language of press release issued on June 12, 2012, below:
“SAN FRANCISCO, June 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ — Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and Samsung CEO Choi Gee Sung were ordered to meet in person to discuss a possible resolution regarding their claims over certain mobile device patents. According to a Bloomberg article, the action ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh will not likely lead to a full resolution. While Apple fights to block Samsung from releasing further updates of Android devices, the former company believes that it did not “copy” any applications from iPad or iPhone products. Kerr & Wagstaffe is one law firm based in the bay-area that has observed the San Jose, California legal proceedings and notes that these trends in mediation are becoming more and more common.
The article states that the matter has resulted in over thirty lawsuits in over ten different countries. Some officials believe that the extent of this legal battle is too complex for jury members to come to a proper decisions; Koh adds that bringing such a debate to trial would be “cruel and unusual punishment” to the jury members. The professionals at Kerr & Wagstaffe believe that protecting intellectual property is an essential part of the law, and the importance of this issue should not be neglected, no matter how complicated it is.
The San Francisco law firm recently won a patent dispute in favor of the Australian inventors of Wi-Fi technology. Although the case involved international parties and complex technological characteristics, Kerr & Wagstaffe were able to establish where credit was due. The organization believes such innovations, like that of Samsung and Apple, are essential to progressing society, but sometimes companies can use intellectual property law for less distinguished reasons. Ivo Labar, a partner at the firm, states, “More and more, the goal of such efforts is to intimidate would be competitors, rather than increasing innovation.”
The Bloomberg article adds to this topic of discussion by stating that Apple may not back down to achieve a mutual settlement as a point of pride. Steven J. Henry, an intellectual property lawyer at Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks in Boston, says, “It would take a very good sales job to come up smelling well from the settlement on Apple’s side. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but the appearance is going to have to be that they were victorious.”
Observing a similar, but failed, mediation attempt in a case between Google and Oracle, Labar states, “It is not unusual for a judge to order the parties to a settlement conference on the eve of trial. In high stakes cases, more and more federal judges are ordering high level executives to attend such conferences.” Despite this trend, Kerr & Wagstaffe professionals believe that such matters will not typically be resolved this way, for the matter of intellectual property is too important for many companies to consider a compromise.
Kerr & Wagstaffe is a San Francisco-based law firm that represents clients in several practice areas, including patent law and intellectual property. Defined by seasoned and skilled litigators, the firm is committed to providing unparalleled legal representation by following the principles of quality, integrity, client service, client value, and teamwork. To learn more about the firm’s services, visit www.kerrwagstaffe.com.”
Rule 1-400 Advertising and Solicitation
(A) For purposes of this rule, “communication” means any message or offer made by or on behalf of a member concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm directed to any former, present, or prospective client, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Any use of firm name, trade name, fictitious name, or other professional designation of such member or law firm; or
2) Any stationery, letterhead, business card, sign, brochure, or other comparable written material describing such member, law firm, or lawyers; or
(3) Any advertisement (regardless of medium) of such member or law firm directed to the general public or any substantial portion thereof; or
(4) Any unsolicited correspondence from a member or law firm directed to any person or entity.
(B) For purposes of this rule, a “solicitation” means any communication:
(1) Concerning the availability for professional employment of a member or a law firm in which a significant motive is pecuniary gain; and
(2) Which is:
(C) A solicitation shall not be made by or on behalf of a member or law firm to a prospective client with whom the member or law firm has no family or prior professional relationship, unless the solicitation is protected from abridgment by the Constitution of the United States or by the Constitution of the State of California. A solicitation to a former or present client in the discharge of a member’s or law firm’s professional duties is not prohibited.
(D) A communication or a solicitation (as defined herein) shall not:
(1) Contain any untrue statement; or
(2) Contain any matter, or present or arrange any matter in a manner or format which is false, deceptive, or which tends to confuse, deceive, or mislead the public; or
(3) Omit to state any fact necessary to make the statements made, in the light of circumstances under which they are made, not misleading to the public; or
(4) Fail to indicate clearly, expressly, or by context, that it is a communication or solicitation, as the case may be; or
(5) Be transmitted in any manner which involves intrusion, coercion, duress, compulsion, intimidation, threats, or vexatious or harassing conduct.
(6) State that a member is a “certified specialist” unless the member holds a current certificate as a specialist issued by the Board of Legal Specialization, or any other entity accredited by the State Bar to designate specialists pursuant to standards adopted by the Board of Governors, and states the complete name of the entity which granted certification.
(E) The Board of Governors of the State Bar shall formulate and adopt standards as to communications which will be presumed to violate this rule 1-400. The standards shall only be used as presumptions affecting the burden of proof in disciplinary proceedings involving alleged violations of these rules. “presumption affecting the burden of proof” means that presumption defined in Evidence Code sections 605 and 606. Such standards formulated and adopted by the Board, as from time to time amended, shall be effective and binding on all members.
(F) A member shall retain for two years a true and correct copy or recording of any communication made by written or electronic media. Upon written request, the member shall make any such copy or recording available to the State Bar, and, if requested, shall provide to the State Bar evidence to support any factual or objective claim contained in the communication.
[Publisher’s Note: Former rule 1-400 (D)(6) repealed by order of the Supreme Court effective November 30, 1992. New rule 1-400 (D)(6) added by order of the Supreme Court effective June 1, 1997.]
Pursuant to rule 1-400(E) the Board of Governors of the State Bar has adopted the following standards, effective May 27, 1989, unless noted otherwise, as forms of “communication” defined in rule 1-400(A) which are presumed to be in violation of rule 1-400:
(1) A “communication” which contains guarantees, warranties, or predictions regarding the result of the representation.
(2) A “communication” which contains testimonials about or endorsements of a member unless such communication also contains an express disclaimer such as “this testimonial or endorsement does not constitute a guarantee, warranty, or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter.”
(3) A “communication” which is delivered to a potential client whom the member knows or should reasonably know is in such a physical, emotional, or mental state that he or she would not be expected to exercise reasonable judgment as to the retention of counsel.
(4) A “communication” which is transmitted at the scene of an accident or at or en route to a hospital, emergency care center, or other health care facility.
(5) A “communication,” except professional announcements, seeking professional employment for pecuniary gain, which is transmitted by mail or equivalent means which does not bear the word “Advertisement,” “Newsletter” or words of similar import in 12 point print on the first page. If such communication, including firm brochures, newsletters, recent legal development advisories, and similar materials, is transmitted in an envelope, the envelope shall bear the word “Advertisement,” “Newsletter” or words of similar import on the outside thereof.
(6) A “communication” in the form of a firm name, trade name, fictitious name, or other professional designation which states or implies a relationship between any member in private practice and a government agency or instrumentality or a public or non-profit legal services organization.
(7) A “communication” in the form of a firm name, trade name, fictitious name, or other professional designation which states or implies that a member has a relationship to any other lawyer or a law firm as a partner or associate, or officer or shareholder pursuant to Business and professions Code sections 6160-6172 unless such relationship in fact exists.
(8) A “communication” which states or implies that a member or law firm is “of counsel” to another lawyer or a law firm unless the former has a relationship with the latter (other than as a partner or associate, or officer or shareholder pursuant to Business and professions Code sections 6160-6172) which is close, personal, continuous, and regular.
(9) A “communication” in the form of a firm name, trade name, fictitious name, or other professional designation used by a member or law firm in private practice which differs materially from any other such designation used by such member or law firm at the same time in the same community.
(10) A “communication” which implies that the member or law firm is participating in a lawyer referral service which has been certified by the State Bar of California or as having satisfied the Minimum Standards for Lawyer Referral Services in California, when that is not the case.
(11) (Repealed. See rule 1-400(D)(6) for the operative language on this subject.)
(12) A “communication,” except professional announcements, in the form of an advertisement primarily directed to seeking professional employment primarily for pecuniary gain transmitted to the general public or any substantial portion thereof by mail or equivalent means or by means of television, radio, newspaper, magazine or other form of commercial mass media which does not state the name of the member responsible for the communication. When the communication is made on behalf of a law firm, the communication shall state the name of at least one member responsible for it.
(13) A “communication” which contains a dramatization unless such communication contains a disclaimer which states “this is a dramatization” or words of similar import.
(14) A “communication” which states or implies “no fee without recovery” unless such communication also expressly discloses whether or not the client will be liable for costs.
(15) A “communication” which states or implies that a member is able to provide legal services in a language other than English unless the member can actually provide legal services in such language or the communication also states in the language of the communication (a) the employment title of the person who speaks such language and (b) that the person is not a member of the State Bar of California, if that is the case.
(16) An unsolicited “communication” transmitted to the general public or any substantial portion thereof primarily directed to seeking professional employment primarily for pecuniary gain which sets forth a specific fee or range of fees for a particular service where, in fact, the member charges a greater fee than advertised in such communication within a period of 90 days following dissemination of such communication, unless such communication expressly specifies a shorter period of time regarding the advertised fee. Where the communication is published in the classified or “yellow pages” section of telephone, business or legal directories or in other media not published more frequently than once a year, the member shall conform to the advertised fee for a period of one year from initial publication, unless such communication expressly specifies a shorter period of time regarding the advertised fee.
(Amended by order of Supreme Court, operative September 14, 1992. Standard (5) amended by the Board of Governors, effective May 11, 1994. Standards (12) – (16) added by the Board of Governors, effective May 11, 1994. Standard (11) repealed June 1, 1997)