Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practicing Before the Court of Federal Claims
As the single largest user of cutting-edge technology in the world, the United States, with its powers of eminent domain, is one of the world's largest infringing entities. While the U.S. government frequently uses patented technology without first obtaining a license, many patent owners are reluctant to bring suit against the government for infringement. One apparent reason for this recalcitrance is that many patent owners are unfamiliar with the court in which such actions must be brought: the Court of Federal Claims. Because bringing suit for patent infringement in the Court of Federal Claims differs from practicing in federal district court, there are several factors of which patent owners should be aware in order to successfully prosecute claims in this court.
Before You File: Jurisdiction and Standing
In bringing suit against the United States for patent infringement, patent owners must allege their jurisdictional grounds carefully. Although Court of Federal Claims practitioners might be accustomed to bringing suit under the Tucker Act per 28 U.S.C. '1491, the court's jurisdiction to hear patent suits is grounded most often in 28 U.S.C. '1498. Section 1498 provides the Court of Federal Claims exclusive jurisdiction to hear suits brought by the owner of a patent, copyright, or certificate of plant variety protection against the United States. (28 U.S.C. '1498 (a)-(d) (1988))
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.