Amazon Didn't Exceed Scope of License to Stream Chinese Drama
California Talent Agency's Lawsuit in Texas Won't Be Stayed Pending Proceeding Before California Labor Commissioner
King Holmes Fires Back at Band's Legal Malpractice Complaint
No Substantial Similarity Found Between TV Show Abbott Elementary and Plaintiff's Teacher-Focused Treatment for Proposed TV Series
In Tamar Equities Corp. v. Signature Barbershop 33 Inc., the Appellate Division analyzed whether the Guaranty Law bars recovery from a guarantor where a commercial tenant's default initially arose during the Guaranty Law's window period, but persisted after its expiration.
In a case of first impression, the Eleventh Circuit decided that a copyright plaintiff may recover damages that occur more than three years before a copyright lawsuit is filed.
The Fourth Circuit ruled that a copyright infringement claim against a news site, for using a photo of musician Ted Nugent without credit, could proceed, one of the first federal appellate decisions interpreting the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent iteration of the fair use test.
When courts have made important exceptions in the past year, they have either added a gloss on the Judicial Code, corrected lawyers' errors, filled in statutory gaps, or clarified the relevant statutory language.
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.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
