Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The copyright statute provision that permits an award of “full costs” to a prevailing party does not include litigation-related expenses such as expert witness fees, jury consulting fees and e-discovery. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that the phrase “full costs” in §505 of the Copyright Act means all of the costs specifically enumerated in the general cost-shifting statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920, such as transcripts and fees for court-appointed experts and interpreters.
“A 'full moon' means the moon, not Mars,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote in Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., 17-1625 (March 4, 2019). “A 'full breakfast' means breakfast, not lunch. A 'full season ticket plan' means tickets, not hot dogs. So too, the term 'full costs' means costs, not other expenses.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.