Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Best April Fools' Day Non-Prank
On April 1, 2008, Judge James C. Cacheris of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia permanently enjoined rules promulgated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO'). News of the federal ruling spread like wildfire among the patent community, quickly leading to e-mails wondering whether the ruling was an elaborate April Fools' Day joke. It was not. Now there are concerns (or hopes) about the implications of the ruling on other USPTO proposed rules as well as the impact Patent Law Reform in Congress could have on the ruling.
The judgment addresses rules first proposed by the USPTO on Jan. 3, 2006 (the 'Proposed Rules') and published on Aug. 21, 2007 as 'Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications,' 72 Fed. Reg. 46,716-843 (the 'Final Rules'). The patent community responded to the Proposed Rules en masse, submitting hundreds of disapproving written comments. The rules were widely viewed with trepidation, with the patent community criticizing the rules for potentially increasing the cost of the patent process and shifting burdens of the patent examination process to the applicant, thereby unfairly limiting patents and patent claims.
The Final Rules set forth changes to the patent examination process that would limit the number of continuing applications, Requests for Continued Examination ('RCEs'), and claims that an applicant could file as a matter of right. Among other things, the Final Rules include the '2+1 Rule' and '5/25 Rule.' Under the 2+1 Rule, as a matter of right, an applicant could only file two continuation or continuation-in-part applications, plus a single RCE, after an initial application. Under the 5/25 rule, an applicant could only present a total of five independent claims and 25 total claims for examination without providing any further information about those claims.
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.