Discussion of two major rulings out of Georgia and New York.
- January 01, 2018ljnstaff
Serving Two Masters
This article examines two recent cases, and suggests practices that lenders to BREs can use to reduce the risk of a debtor bankruptcy without compromising the policies underlying bankruptcy and corporate laws.
January 01, 2018Pamela J. MartinsonGeneral Counsel for “Ultra Music” Company Can't Be Deposed in Lawsuit by Licensee
Magistrate Rules That Statute of Limitations for Copyright Infringement Actions Is No Bar to Discovery Requests
New York Federal Court Will Consider Copyright Ownership Claim, But Not Registration Issue, in Dispute Over PlayJanuary 01, 2018Stan SoocherThis article outlines the available options under the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ACR rules and discusses the strategic considerations in determining whether ACR might be advantageous, particularly in light of increasing pressure from clients to reduce costs and expedite the decision-making process.
December 01, 2017Chris Bussert and Harris HendersonHow the Seminal Fourth Circuit's Ruling Is Applied in Different Circuits
The rule of Zeran has been uniformly applied by every federal circuit court to consider it and by numerous state courts. And it has never been rejected in any precedential opinion. Indeed, it is perhaps a fitting tribute to the viability of Zeran that 20 year later the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in its 12th opinion construing the CDA, barely spent even a sentence affirming dismissal of a defamation claim brought against Facebook over user content, pursuant to the CDA and the rule first developed in Zeran.
December 01, 2017Ian C. BallonOn Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.
December 01, 2017Howard Shire and Michael BlockPresident Trump's first 11 months in office brought significant changes to labor and employment law. Immediate changes to the leadership and agendas for the DOL, the EEOC and the NLRB) have already occurred, along with reversals of policy and positions taken in court.
December 01, 2017Matthew B. Schiff and Kathryn C. NadroIn a case of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has decided that the newsworthiness and public interest exceptions to Indiana's right-of-publicity statute do apply to online fantasy sports companies that use college athletes' names and likenesses.
December 01, 2017Stan SoocherCompanies try to protect their reputations from executives who have "gone wild" by including moral turpitude clauses as a basis to terminate executives for cause under their employment agreements. Similarly, in the context of employment disputes, companies try to protect themselves through the use of non-disclosure, non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions in settlement agreements.
December 01, 2017Steven I. Adler and Lauren X. Topelsohn








