Tag Archives: Business

Former U.S. Ambassador Discusses Technology & Miami as Global City


Assouline & Berlowe Partner Peter E. Berlowe had the privilege of listening to firm friend Former U.S. Ambassador to Singapore Hon. Kirk Wagar speak last week at Pipeline Workspaces. Ambassador Wagar spoke about opportunities in South and Southeast Asia and how Miami can grow in to a truly global city.  In part, Ambassador Wagar discussed how driverless vehicles and related technology will begin to have far reaching implications for worldwide employment and economics over the next five to ten years.  Ambassador Wagar reflected upon the United States as the true world power, in part because of U.S. private business’ continued respect for business formalities and intellectual properties of the other countries in which they invest.  Pictured are Peter E. Berlowe, Hon. Kirk Wagar, and WLRN V.P. of News Tom Hudson.

For more information about the speech or related issues, please contact Mr. Berlowe at:

Peter E. Berlowe, Esq.


3250 Mary Street, Suite 100

Miami, Florida 33133

Main:  (305) 567-5576

Fax: (305) 567-9343

Email: PEB@AssoulineBerlowe.com


Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Arbitration, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Intellectual Property, International, Uncategorized

The Intersection of IP and Technology


Registered Patent Attorney Greg Popowitz recently filmed a CLE focused on Understanding Intellectual Property (IP) and Attorneys’ use of Technology.  Greg discussed the important distinctions between patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, along with the key considerations when attempting to secure protection for your IP.

The second part of the course is directed at what attorneys should look out for as they use technology. Greg discusses attorneys using efiling, the need to redact sensitive information, ediscovery, social media and websites, and cloud computing (confidentiality). The CLE goes over relevant portions of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration.

To learn more about the CLE and what CLE credits are available in your state, please visit the National Academy of Continuing Legal Education (NACLE) here.  NACLE is seeking technology credit in Florida as the new technology CLE requirement starts January 1 2017.

For any questions about patents, trademarks, and copyrights, or IP generally, please contact Greg Popowitz below.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Intellectual Property Litigation


213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com


LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton




Leave a comment

Filed under Patent Prosecution

Partner Eric Assouline Presents at Deposition Skills Training Course

Certified Deposition Transcript

Cases are often won or lost through depositions.  A well taken deposition can make the difference at all the stages of the litigation, including mediation, summary judgment, and trial.

All litigation attorneys must treat depositions as the most critical aspect of the case.  A deposition is as close to hand to hand combat as litigation will become.  The deposition is the only time that the parties and the attorneys will all be together at the same time without a judge or mediator present.  It is the first time the parties and their counsel will all be starring one another in the eyes to size up their adversaries.how to take a deposition

Every litigator must ask themselves:

Would I like to be more effective when taking depositions?

Would I like to learn from attorneys who are experienced in taking depositions?

Would I like to learn from attorneys who have crafted a CLE seminar that will provide me with practical, useful advice?

If yes, you’ll will want to sign up for the upcoming CLE program Mastering the Deposition: A Critical Skills Workshop, presented by Pincus Professional Education. This program received outstanding evaluations last year, so you don’t want to miss it.

“I know a lot more practical information about depositions than when I woke up this morning.” N. A. Marzuk, Esq.

“This was a great program, and I greatly appreciate the practical advice on how to handle difficult situations that sometimes arise during a deposition.”

“I appreciated the practical advice regarding how to deal with problematic situations which arise during the taking of a deposition…” J. Scifo, Esq.

Mastering the Deposition: A Critical Skills Program
March 21, 2014; 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Hampton Inn & Suites

Miami/Brickell Downtown
50 SW 12th Street

What attendees will learn:

  • Overview & Strategy
    • What is your purpose in       taking the deposition? Not a “one size fits all” process
    • Tips and tricks that       may give you the edge
  • Rule 30(b)(6)
    • Difference between Rule       30(b)(6) and a fact witness
    • Preparation required
    • How to avoid sanctions
    • What to do when you       have an unprepared witness
    • Best practices for a       Rule 30(b)(6) request
  • Witness Preparation
    • How to best prepare       your witness
    • The percipient witness       vs. a PMK
    • Ethical considerations
  • Expert Depositions
    • Effective strategies to       qualify and/or attack expert witnesses
    • Using Motions in Limine       to exclude expert or testimony
  • Technology
    • Super depositions       (picture-in-picture video depositions that bring trial presentation       software into the deposition)
    • Streaming video       depositions
    • Tips for successful       video depositions (i.e. how to prep your witness for a video depo)
    • How to get the most out       of video/text synchronization (i.e. searching transcripts and exporting       video depo clips to link in eBriefs)
    • Video impeachment at       trial
    • Strategies for       deposition playback at court (i.e, video only, video with text scrolling,       linking exhibits with video and how to decide which is appropriate for       your trial)
    • Case Study: How a       Picture-in-Picture Video Deposition Changed the Course of a Jury       Deliberation
  • Handling the Difficult      Witness and/or Opposing Counsel
    • Concrete tips and       advice
  • Handling Documents &      Exhibits – Making the record; get the authentication you need
  • Deposition Objections
    • How do I do it?
    • Why do I do it? – Depo       objection strategies
    • What to avoid
    • Biggest risks in       objecting and not objecting
    • What works
    • What matters
    • Additional tips from       the trenches

This is an excellent chance to become more effective at taking – and using – depositions, from start to finish.

Plan your deposition with care.

Decide on an effective strategy before you start.

Use your deposition in the courtroom for the most impact.

Plan to attend.

CLE Summary:

Pincus Professional Education certifies that this seminar is pending approval for 7.0 hours of Florida general CLER credit. Approved for 6.0 hours MCLE in CA.

Prior attendee’s thoughts:
“I thought all topics covered were informative and to the point.” M.MCallister, Esq.

“Thought all speakers were very interesting and informative.” J. Young, Esq.

“The sample production requests and outline for experts will be very helpful.”

“Seminar was very helpful and fulfilled/exceeded my expectations…”

To attend the CLE, REGISTER HERE!   For any of your business needs, please contact Mr. Assouline.

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.


Main: 954.929.1899

Email: ENA@assoulineberlowe.com


Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, and Corporate Law

Miami • Ft.Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, IP Litigation, Labor & Employment, Marital Law

The Boca Raton office of Assouline & Berlowe has moved!

Assouline & Berlowe’s Boca Raton, Florida office has recently moved to 1801 N. Military Trail (Suite 160), Boca Raton, Florida 33431.  Our Boca Raton office includes Partner Peter Koziol, head of the Intellectual Property Litigation practice, and Partner Ellen Leibovitch, Florida Board Certified and head of the Labor & Employment Law practice.

Mr. Koziol frequently counsels clients regarding their intellectual property needs.  Whether you need advice on protecting your inventions and intellectual property, or if you have recently been sued for infringement, Mr. Koziol is well versed to assess the situation and recommend the best course of action.  In today’s legal climate, patent assertion entities, or patent trolls as they are commonly referred to, are actively enforcing their IP portfolio against alleged infringers.  If you or your company need help defending an infringement lawsuit, contact Peter Koziol.

Ms. Leibovitch focuses her law practice on labor and employment counseling and litigation, in addition to commercial and business litigation.  If you are starting a new position and need an attorney to draft or review an employment agreement, call Ellen Leibovitch to make sure your rights are protected.  Or, if your company is setting up or modifying internal employee handbooks, non-compete agreements, or other employee-related agreements, Ellen can provide you the appropriate counseling to ensure applicable state and federal laws are followed.

Again, please remember that our Boca Raton office has changed physical location, but all our other contact information remains the same.

For more information on your business needs, call the attorneys at ASSOULINE & BERLOWE – The BUSINESS LAW Firm


Miami (305) 567-5576

Ft. Lauderdale (954) 929-1899

Boca Raton (561) 361-6566


Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, and Corporate Law

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Labor & Employment, Patent Prosecution

11th Circuit Antitrust Update – Private Enforcement of Public Wrongs…..


Private Enforcement of Public Wrongs . . . the Antitrust “Private Attorney General”

The cornerstone of American Antitrust policy:

the “belief that economic questions are generally best determined …through a process of independent, competitive decision‐making by profit‐seeking firms striving to serve customers who seek maximum satisfaction through their choices among market alternatives. Antitrust law aims to protect economic competition by prohibiting collusive, exclusionary, and monopolistic practices that restrain competition and thereby pose a danger of increased prices and reduced output, quality, and innovation.”

Section Four of the Clayton Act, (15 U.S.C. § 15), permits “any person who… injured in his (or her) business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws (to) sue…in any district court… without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” The statute, by permitting a private cause of actions for what are primarily penal statutes, places the plaintiff in the shoes of the Attorney General; the public’s chief law enforcement officer. Hence, a Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2) private plaintiff (alleging that the Defendant is a monopolist “or (has attempted) to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations”), may be said to act as a “private Attorney General.”  Florida’s Antitrust Act, (Fla. Stat. § 542.19) generally parallels the Federal scheme.

“The distinctive system of private enforcement that we have in this country is substantially underappreciated. Congress’s venerable “private Attorney General” idea has produced tremendous benefits for the United States economy – for businesses of all sizes and, ultimately, for consumers. It has helped to deter anticompetitive behavior and to compensate victims of illegal activity. It has enabled U.S. businesses and consumers to protect themselves from economic exploitation, both by those who subvert the free market in general and by foreign cartels in particular. It has saved the U.S. taxpayer tremendous sums in enforcement costs by shifting the enormous burdens and risks of litigating against sophisticated, well-financed lawbreakers to private plaintiffs’ counsel.” (Robert H. Lande and Joshua P. Davis, An Evaluation of Private Antitrust Enforcement: 29 Cases; An Interim Report (2006))

On March 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Nielson Media Research (No. 11-10901), considered “an issue of first impression in this circuit.” The Court was asked to determine whether a plaintiff customer (as required of a plaintiff competitor) in an antitrust action must “prove the existence of a competitor willing and able to enter the relevant market, but for the exclusionary conduct of the incumbent monopolist.” It upheld the district court’s partial summary judgment dismissing, for lack of antitrust standing, the plaintiff’s Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §2), Florida Antitrust Act (Fla. Stat. §542.19), and a Section 4 Clayton Act (15 U.S.A. §2) treble damages claims.

Neilson (the Respondent) is “the predominant supplier of television audience measurement services in the United States.” Its monopoly power was not disputed. Sunbeam (the Appellant) operates Miami Fox affiliate WSVN television. A Nielson customer for 30 years, Sunbeam based its allegations on what it called Nielson’s 2008 “improper and defective implementation” of a new audience rating technology in the Miami–Fort Lauderdale that “understates WSVN’s actual viewership audience.” It claimed that in this relevant market, “WSVN lost approximately $1 million per month in advertising revenue (and that its) going concern value dropped by over $100 million.” Sunbeam cited a litany of willful exclusionary acts that “insulate Nielson from competition, allow it (Nielson) to force inferior products upon its customers, and force its customers to pay (sic) supracompetitive prices.” It claimed that the exclusionary conduct dissuaded competitors “willing and able to supply a superior product,” from entering the market.

Reviewing the antitrust issue de novo, the Court noted that, “(a)ntitrust standing requires a party to do more than meet the basic ‘case or controversy’ or ‘injury in fact’ required by Article III of the Constitution….The doctrine reflects…prudential concerns and is designed to avoid burdening the courts with speculative and remote claims. Antitrust standing is a conscientious method to find the proper private plaintiff to enforce the antitrust laws.” (Emphasis added)

Because the US Supreme Court has “declined to articulate a bright-line rule,” a case-specific determination is required. The Court reiterated the 11th Circuit’s two-pronged, threshold test: (1) Did the Plaintiff suffer antitrust injury; and (2) is the Plaintiff an “efficient enforcer” of the antitrust laws?

To have antitrust standing (i.e., to be a proper plaintiff in a “private Attorney General” or “efficient enforcer” role the Court indicated that the factors a court should consider are:


  1. The directness or indirectness of the asserted injury;
  2. The remoteness of the injury;
  3. Whether the potential plaintiffs are better suited to vindicate the harm;
  4. Whether the damages are highly speculative;
  5. The extent which the apportionment of damages was highly complex; and
  6. Whether Plaintiff would be able to efficiently and effectively enforce the judgment.

The Appeals Court reviewed the District’s Court’s detailed analysis, adopting for the 11th Circuit that court’s finding. That is, the lower court, relying on Meijer, Inc. v. Biovail, Corp., 533 F.3d 857 (D.C. Cir. 2008), determined that a customer antitrust plaintiff carries the same burden of proof as a competitor antitrust plaintiff. The D.C. Circuit Court held that

“Just as a would-be entrant suing an incumbent firm for excluding it from a relevant market in violation of the Sherman Act must demonstrate it intended and was prepared to enter that market…so a would-be purchaser suing an incumbent monopolist for excluding a potential competitor from which it might have bought a product at a lower price must prove the excluded firm was willing and able to supply it but for the incumbent firm’s exclusionary conduct.” (Emphasis added)

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals declared that:

“Sunbeam (the customer antitrust plaintiff) must establish that the competitor has ‘taken[n] some affirmative steps to enter the business’…To prove preparedness, a plaintiff must show that the potential competitor ‘prepared cash flows estimates and financial statements in order to determine the profitability of the expansion,’ had existing capabilities that would have allowed it to serve the market, took affirmative steps to obtain necessary government permits, etc.”

In essence, the purchaser’s supporting proof of antitrust standing (e.g., that potential competitor entrants to the market are “waiting in the wings”) is only speculative.

Thank you Carl H. Perdue, Esq. for this case analysis.

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

In Miami: 305-567-5576

In Broward: 954-929-1899

In Palm Beach: 561-361-6566



Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law, Bankruptcy, Commercial Litigation, and Corporate Law

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation