Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent Policing: Federal Circuit Upholds District Courts’ Inherent Authority to Sanction Party Conduct
In recent decisions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the inherent powers of district courts to investigate and address potential party misconduct in patent litigations, including suspected fraud and bad faith conduct. In addition, the Federal Circuit held that parties suspected of fraudulent or bad faith conduct cannot evade the district court’s investigation or misconduct sanctions by voluntarily dismissing their suits. This article delves into these key cases that upheld district courts’ policing by standing orders or sanctions and underscore the importance of transparency and proper conduct in patent litigation.
Chief Judge Connolly’s Third-Party Funding Order
In April 2022, Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a standing order that applies in all his cases. The order requires all parties appearing before him to disclose third-party litigation funders who pay for a party’s attorney fees or expenses on a nonrecourse basis in exchange for a contingent financial interest in the litigation. This requirement aims to address potential attorney and party misconduct in patent cases by ensuring transparency, particularly regarding the real parties in interest.
Essentially, this order is directed at any third parties who provide funding to a litigating party in a manner that is unlike a personal loan, bank loan, or insurance. Any party receiving such third-party funding must file a disclosure statement containing: 1) the third-party litigation funder’s identity, address, and place of formation; and 2) whether the funder’s approval is required for litigation or settlement decisions. The order also allows parties to seek additional discovery where good cause exists, such as when the third-party litigation funder has decision-making authority over the litigation.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
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.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?