Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Will Presumptive Injunctions Against Infringers Be Relics of the Past?
In American law, courts exercise their awesome powers through injunctions. Courts have used injunctions to implement decisions addressing many of the most divisive social issues of the day: from integrating public schools to even arguably affecting presidential elections. E.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) (enjoining Florida ballot recount); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) (directing district courts to supervise “transition to a system of public education freed of racial discrimination”). See New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) (refusing to grant injunction to prevent publication of “Pentagon Papers”).
An injunction, essentially, is a court order commanding someone to do some action, or prohibiting someone from doing some action. Injunctions thus present an “equitable” alternative to the conventional “legal” remedy of awarding monetary damages that is both flexible and potent. Thus, injunctions have been described as the “quintessential” remedy of a court of equity.
In patent cases, courts have used injunctions in ways that are, if less creative, certainly no less potent: typically, for the life of a patent, to order a defendant found to have infringed a valid patent from committing further infringement. As is currently being widely reported, there is “much anxiety throughout corporate America … that a long-running patent infringement battle between the maker of BlackBerry', Research In Motion, and NTP, a tiny patent holding company, might cause a service shutdown, perhaps within a month.” Ian Austen, Bye Bye BlackBerry?, N.Y. Times, Dec. 3, 2005.
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.