Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Sept. 11, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court (“CAFC”) issued an opinion in the case of Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. v. Gateway Inc. et al. (“Lucent“). In its ruling, the CAFC found that “the damages evidence of record was neither very powerful, nor presented very well by either party” and that the plaintiff's damages calculation “lacked sufficient evidentiary support.” The CAFC therefore vacated the district court's award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.
In vacating the damages award, the CAFC provided insight into its current views on issues often considered in connection with the determination of damages in patent infringement litigation. While the case does not establish any fundamentally new methodologies, it does discuss a number of intellectual and economic issues related to the determination of reasonable royalty damages.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
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?