Many law firms are adopting corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs as a means to gaining a competitive advantage over other firms. They are developing and utilizing these programs to promote and advertise yet another dynamic of their organization.
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Hall Street Associates, L. L. C. v. Mattel, Inc. had long been anticipated by the litigation and arbitration communities and has been the subject of extensive commentary and debate in the brief period since it was rendered. This article explains why.
After almost seven years since inception, the lawsuit by adidas against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. ended at the trial level with a jury verdict against Payless in the amount of $305 million. Payless was found guilty of willful federal trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark and trade dress dilution, and state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices as a result of its sale of footwear bearing confusingly similar imitations of adidas's famous Three-Stripe Mark and Superstar Trade Dress.
The latest news from the franchising world.
In Quanta Computer, many observers believed that the Court would address whether, and to what extent, a party can contractually restrict application of the patent exhaustion doctrine, under which patent rights covering a product are extinguished when the product is sold without restriction. Instead, the Court's decision in Quanta appears to be relatively narrow, confirming that the sale of unpatented components can exhaust a system patent that is substantially, but not completely, embodied by those components, but leaving open the broader question of whether parties can contractually limit application of the patent exhaustion doctrine to the detriment of downstream good faith purchasers.
Medical Services Must Be Legally Rendered to Qualify for Payment
A majority of courts consider the contra proferentem doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
This article examines potential conflicts of interest between an insurer and its insured and the extent of an insured's right to its own independent counsel in such circumstances. This article also discusses other situations that may raise conflicts of interest between an insurer and an insured sufficient to trigger a right to independent counsel. Finally, it considers whether the insurer or the insured has the right to select that counsel.
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
