Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
As survey evidence has become increasingly common in litigation, it is important to remember that not all surveys are made the same. It’s important to be able to identify the right survey methodology for the matter at hand. For this article, as for Part 1 and Part 2 in our series, we draw on our review of a set of over 300 cases involving survey evidence, including over 150 involving Daubert challenges spanning different survey methodologies. These rulings provide insight into factors that courts may consider when determining whether to admit surveys and how much weight to afford them. The appropriate use of survey methodologies frequently is a consideration in those determinations.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
By John McElwaine
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.
AI Can Facilitate Innovation, But It Can Also Become a Potent Patent Killer
By Michael K. Friedland
When is an inventor not an inventor? It’s when the inventor isn’t human. So, if a non-human inventor can’t, in the eyes of patent law, be an inventor, what role can the non-human inventor have in the patent system? The answer is straightforward. Even though it can’t create, it can destroy.
Patent Your Trade Secrets In Wake of Noncompete Ban
By Daniel E. Rose
While it may be growing more difficult to protect business information with the FTC’s noncompete ban, patents can provide strong protection over technical innovations, regardless of whether the inventor stays with the company or leaves.
Key Takeaways from the Latest USPTO Guidance on AI
By James DeCarlo
The April Guidance, which supplements prior guidance issued in February, seeks to remind practitioners of existing rules and to educate them on potential risks associated with artificial intelligence tool use, allowing practitioners to mitigate these risks.