Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit ruled that a district court properly performed the 'gatekeeping' role required of it by the U.S. Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence when it allowed the testimony of plaintiff's damages expert. Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Lextron, Inc. (Fed. Cir., Jan. 24, 2003). The plaintiff, Micro Chemical, alleged that defendants Lextron and Turnkey Computer Systems, Inc. infringed Micro Chemical's U.S. Patent No. 5,315,505 for a computerized medical records system for tracking health histories and medical treatments of livestock.
The defendants objected to the testimony of Micro Chemical's expert, Edward Fiorito, arguing, among other things, that he based his opinion on inaccurate facts and relied on the statements of others and did not undertake an independent investigation of the feedlot industry or personally review the parties' financial records. The Federal Circuit upheld the District Court's decision to allow the expert testimony, explaining that under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence a trial court is required to ensure that expert testimony must be based on 'sufficient facts or data,' but that Rule 702 does not authorize a trial court to exclude an expert's testimony because it believes one set of facts or the other. The Federal Circuit also cautioned that the trial court's role of gatekeeper described in Daubert is 'not intended to serve as a replacement for the adversary system.'
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.