Columns & Departments
IP News
Fed. Cir. Vacates Lack of Written Description Ruling In Interference<br>Federal Circuit Vacates Unclear Application of “Causal Nexus” Requirement to Prove Irreparable Harm
Business Crimes Hotline
Analysis of a case in which a German national admitted to taking part in a 2001 to 2004 scheme to pay roughly $3 million in bribes to Haitian officials in return for favorable treatment from Teleco, a state-owned telecommunications company.
Features

<i><b>Legal Tech</i></b><br> Four Cases Highlighting e-Discovery Trends in the First Half of 2017
A look at important cases in e-discovery so far this year.
Features

<b><i>Online Extra</b></i><br> Google Sues to Block 'Repugnant' Canadian Court Decision
Google Inc. has filed suit in U.S. federal court seeking to block enforcement of a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that would require the search giant to delist certain search results worldwide.
Features

<b><i>Online Extra</i></b><br> Pokéstop: Judge Calls Timeout in Suit Against Pokémon Go Maker
A federal judge has pressed pause on a group of lawsuits targeting the maker of augmented reality game Pokémon Go with nuisance and trespass claims for placing virtual landmarks on top of real property.
Features
U.S. Supreme Court Addresses the 'Denominator Problem'
In a recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court applied what has come to be known as the <i>Penn Central</i> balancing test to uphold New York City's refusal to approve an office tower atop Grand Central Terminal.
Features

Recent Rulings on California Anti-SLAPP Motions By Entertainment Attorneys
Defendants in entertainment industry cases often invoke California's "anti-SLAPP" statute, Calif. Civ. Code §425.16, which is meant to bar lawsuits filed to muffle free speech activities or a legal right to petition. This summer, some noteworthy court decisions have come out of California that involved anti-SLAPP motions filed by attorneys who are defendants themselves in entertainment litigations.
Features

What Will Impact Be of Supreme Court's <i>Tam</i> Decision?
In <i>Matal v. Tam</i>, the trademark case involving the name of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, the SCOTUS held that the portion of §2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), that prohibits the federal registration of potentially disparaging trademarks and service marks, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Features

A Broadening Consensus to Narrow Asset Forfeiture
The Supreme Court as a whole appears aligned and motivated to review critically federal and state asset forfeiture procedures. In addition, Attorney General Sessions last month restored the federal forfeiture of property seized by state and local law enforcement ("federal adoptions"), but with certain additional safeguards.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis 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.Read More ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe 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.Read More ›
- 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.Read More ›
- The Anti-Assignment Override ProvisionsUCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?Read More ›
- The Stranger to the Deed RuleIn 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.Read More ›