Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Part One of this series discussed the two types of reduction to practice: constructive and actual. This installment continues the discussion of satisfying the second prong of the actual reduction to practice test.
Features
When entering into a patent license, the most time is often spent on two issues: 1) how much money, and 2) what am I getting or granting for the money. Several recent appellate court decisions remind us that attention also needs to be paid to other provisions, as they can drastically affect one's rights. This article discusses three such decisions that address declaratory judgment actions, arbitration, and termination, that collectively remind us that the devil is in the details.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
When an insurance policy is written for a single year, little controversy exists regarding the limits of liability. Multi-year policies, those written for more than one annual period, and stub policies, those in effect for less than a year, are, however, becoming a source of disagreement. Particularly with long-tail claims such as asbestos, chemical exposures, and welding rod litigation triggering historic policies from the 1960s and 1970s, litigation on these issues is becoming ever more important. There is no established general rule regarding the available limits for these types of policies. Rather, courts apply a case-specific analysis of the evidence and policy language to determine the parties' intent regarding the policy's limits. Based on the policy language, or lack thereof, courts have, with limited exceptions, found full aggregate limits during each annual period for multi-year policies and an additional set of limits for stub policies. Such findings are supported by policy language, general legal principles, the economics of the parties' transactions, and industry practice.
Features
A recent study commissioned by the Equipment Leasing and Financing Association of America ('ELFA') and produced by The Alta Group examines how U.S. businesses and other organizations acquire critical information technology ('IT') equipment and what factors influence the decision-making processes.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
In the past, I have written a number of articles directed at U.S. leasing professionals on what they should know about doing business in Canada. These past articles have focused on the leasing business in general as opposed to any particular sector. They discussed broad issues, such as withholding tax and regulatory concerns, but did not examine the specifics of any particular class of collateral or industry sector. During the past several months, I have received a number of inquiries from U.S. lessors in regard to the financing of motor vehicles in Canada. It became readily apparent that not only are there significant differences in law and practice affecting Canadian and U.S. lessors, there also exists a general misunderstanding of the laws of Canada. While generally, Canadian and U.S. law and practice are similar, one area in which they are divergent is motor vehicles. This article, while far from being a complete guide, provides certain guidance as to the most significant concerns.
Features
Lessors and lenders need to be aware of a recently issued U.S. District Court decision addressing the enforceability of a prepayment premium in a mortgage loan context. The decision in <i>River East Plaza, LLC v. The Variable Annuity Life Company</i> (Slip Copy, 2006 WL 2787483 (N. D. Ill.)) was rendered on Sept. 22, 2006, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division), construing Illinois law.
Features
For the last nine months, participants in the aircraft leasing and finance industry have been dealing with the newly formed international registry for the registration of interests in aircraft and the changes in substantive law governing aircraft sale, lease, and finance transactions brought about by the ratification of the Cape Town Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the related Aircraft Protocol. The Convention and Aircraft Protocol were developed and are being promoted by'
Features
Company X is evaluating whether it should purchase the assets of Company Y, which manufactures lawnmowers. Company X has been looking to break into the lawnmower market and sees the purchase of Company Y's assets as an excellent opportunity to do so. Company X is considering two courses of action if it purchases Company Y's assets: 1) continue the manufacture of Company Y's lawnmower product line, using Company Y's designs, specifications, diagrams, blueprints, personnel, and manufacturing facilities; or 2) cease the manufacturing of the product line, but continue Company Y's ancillary business of repairing and servicing the lawnmowers it sold to its customers. Company X comes to you with a seemingly straightforward question: Under these two scenarios, will it be held liable for product liability claims arising from Company Y's manufacture and sale of defective lawnmowers, even if, as part of the asset purchase, it expressly declines to assume Company Y's liabilities? Unfortunately, based on the current state of the law, you will not be able to provide Company X with an easy, clear-cut answer.
