This past week, the firm reviewed a trademark Office Action and advised a client that they probably need to rebrand.
For another client, the firm reviewed and updated an MSA template.
A client is considering suing on past due invoices; the firm handles commercial debt collection from time to time. Mostly, however, the firm defends such matters.
As mentioned in Saturday’s post, the firm finally got the Bridgeport convenience store / gas station deal across the finish line!
The USPTO issued a patent Office Action in another client’s pending software invention application. It seems like there is a path toward allowance. Software inventions can be tricky because of what patent attorneys refer to as “101 problems” — the USPTO examiners often say that software inventions are just “abstract ideas”. The firm drafted this application so that it describes an invention that performs a real task to achieve a concrete improvement in the operation of a computer system, which is the sine qua non for overcoming 101 problems (subject matter eligibility problems) with software inventions.
In a Meriden Superior Court matter, the defendant filed a special motion to dismiss under Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP statute. The statute is drafted quite broadly: it permits a special motion to dismiss in any case related to an audiovisual work, such as an Instagram Reel or Youtube video.
Speaking of commercial debt collection, Sandollar Law picked up the defense of a couple such matters this week, one in Windham Superior Court and the other in Stamford Superior Court. The firm sometimes serves as local counsel for out-of-state firms.
In a pro bono copyright infringement defense, the firm’s client secured an affordable settlement with the plaintiff before a lawsuit was filed.
Sometimes the most productive minutes spent on a dispute are not in the courtroom, but in the dim cold lobby outside. At least that may have been the case in Waterbury Superior Court this week, where I had a good conversation with defendant’s counsel in a debt collection case that is premised on a business purchase gone bad.
In another sour business purchase case in Bridgeport Superior Court, the defendant who is also the landlord to the firm’s client served a notice to quit on the client. This is the sort of thing that can happen in a complicated business relationship.
The firm has prepared and will file a complaint and application for prejudgment remedy in Milford Superior Court, in yet another case arising from a business purchase gone wrong. Here, the firm’s client was the seller and the buyers have defaulted on their balloon payment. Typically, Sandollar Law does not advise its clients to contract for a large balloon payment.
Depending how things shake out, the firm may be filing a complaint in Windham Superior Court for defamation per se on behalf on an individual whose primary income has been harmed (lost a client) by derogatory remarks about their side job.
Getting into business with a family member or close friend can be fraught. Recently, the firm settled a dispute in Milford Superior Court between two friends who had gotten into a professional services LLC together — only one friend was a proper member of such an LLC. Before that, there was a dispute in Bridgeport Superior Court between two romantic partners who got in business together and had the business fall apart. Now, the firm is handling another Milford Superior Court dispute between spouses regarding a bridalwear shop. Things get heated when there’s friction between partners in business.
In New Haven Federal District Court, the litigation is paused while Sandollar Law works with a Carmody Torrance attorney to formulate a mututally-acceptable plan of settlement. The clients started with “interesting” asks, but we’ll hopefully converge on something reasonable.
Another case in New Haven Superior Court involving romance fraud, where the defendant professes willingness to pay his debt but quibbles over how much it is. A hearing on a prejudgment remedy application was delayed at the last-minute request of defendant’s counsel. Often, attorneys will hang on to conflicting schedule events until they find out whether one of the events might be continued by someone else; it’s a procedural game of chicken.
A client promised to pay their plaintiff in a debt collection case, and then forgot to send the check. Fortunately that got straightened out by the end of the week, and the plaintiff’s counsel now has confirmed receipt.
In New Haven Superior Court, the firm has been defending a commercial debt collection case that never should have been brought there in the first instance. It has been dismissed, and last week Sandollar Law filed a motion to dissolve the still-pending prejudgment remedy.
It took about two weeks to resolve a dispute between one of the firm’s longstanding clients and their soon-to-be-out business partner. Everyone was agreed on the general principles, but I got hung up on trying to get a “global” release even though there were no other plausible claims beyond the specific ones in the opposing counsel’s draft agreement. Fortunately I came to my senses and got the clients’ signatures on a mutually-favorable settlement.
