Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The term “nanotechnology” generally refers to the fabrication and manipulation of materials and devices on the scale of about 1-100 nanometers, and has become one of the key technology buzzwords for 2004. The passage of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, Pub. L. No. 108-153, which authorized $3.7 billion in federal funding from 2005 through 2008 for the support of nanotechnology research and development, has fueled the fervor over nanotechnology. This substantial funding came as the scientific community and industries as diverse as cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and petrochemicals were increasingly discovering that, when reduced to nanoscale size, ordinary bits of matter often manifest radically different physical properties. See Joseph Brean, The Next Big (Little) Thing, National Post (Feb. 6, 2004).
The excitement has spread from academia and R&D labs to Wall Street, where investors are jumping at the chance to get in on the action from the outset. In fact, investors have proven so fascinated with nanotechnology that in December 2003 a company called Nanometrics saw its stock price increase by 10% in one day of heavy trading, even though Nanometrics announced no news that day and, as it turns out, does not practice nanotechnology in any commonplace sense of the term. Rather, Nanometrics makes tools that measure thin films used in semiconductors, flat-panel displays, and disk drives. So why the jump in stock price? Simply, it appears, because Nanometrics happens to trade under the ticket symbol NANO. Rachel Beck, Investors Pour Big Money Into Latest Rage, Nanotech, The Grand Rapids Press, 2004 WL 58533128 (Jan. 11, 2004).
While scientists toil to conquer the mechanics of nanotechnology and Wall Street strives to cash in on it, the intellectual property bar and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) have begun to prepare for an onslaught of new patent applications and potential new patent prosecution pitfalls. As the fundamental science of nanotechnology (which embraces combined elements of, at least, such well-developed arts as chemistry, physics, electronics, material science, and mechanical engineering) seems likely to be readily integrable into the scope of traditional patent protection, nanotechnology-related patent applications are not expected to encounter the wholesale confusion associated with the early prosecution practice of claims for business methods and certain biotechnology applications, both of which were initially held by the USPTO to be non-patentable subject matter. Still, there may be problems unique to the prosecution of nanotechnology-related patent claims. One oft-voiced concern of the intellectual property bar is that, in the absence of a specialized nanotechnology examining group, early-filed nanotechnology patents may issue with claims of unusually broad scope.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.