Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Sept. 20, 2007, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., Civ. No. 2006-1503 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) clarified the standard for direct infringement where multiple parties are involved in performing steps of a method claim, which was previously confused by a statement made in the opinion for On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc., 442 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Federal Circuit confirmed that direct infringement requires a single party to perform all steps of an asserted method claim, and that direct infringement under a theory of joint or divided infringement requires a single party that does not perform all of the steps to direct or control the other party or parties in performing the missing steps of the asserted method claim. Accordingly, because Paymentech neither performed all of the steps of the asserted method claims, nor directed or controlled the other parties to perform the missing steps, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that Paymentech did not directly infringe on BMC Resources' patents.
The '456 Patent Claims
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.