Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The ability of patents to encourage innovation by granting exclusive rights is well-recognized. However, patents can serve an antithetical role as well by, in certain circumstances, deterring, rather than encouraging, innovation.
The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents can help to reduce the potential for patents to hinder innovation. Created by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898, the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents provides an accused infringer with an opportunity to escape liability if it can demonstrate that the device (or process) at issue is so far changed in principle from the patented article (or process) that the device performs the same or similar function as the patented article but in a substantially different way. Boyden Power-Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537 (1898).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.