Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recognizing a Problem Is the First Step: Federal Circuit Acknowledges Unsettled Law, But Declines to Clarify
The tort of induced patent infringement codified in 35 U.S.C. '271(b) is a powerful tool that patent owners can use when it is not feasible or practical to sue a direct infringer. In order to prove this claim, a patent owner must establish that 1) its claim is directly infringed by a third party, 2) that the defendant induced that third party to infringe, and 3) that the defendant possessed intent to encourage that party to infringe.
The precise level of intent that must be shown to hold a party liable, however, has been unclear at least since the Federal Circuit issued a pair of decisions in 1990, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc., 917 F.2d 544, 546-49 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The General Intent Approach: Hewlett-Packard v. Bausch & Lomb
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.