Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Columns & Departments
Boots Litigation Involving John Wayne's Persona To Be Heard in California, Instead of Texas<br>Distinguishing Between Burden of Proof for California Statutory and Common Law "Likeness" Violation Claims<br>Interpreting Jury Verdict in Quincy Jones' Music Royalty Case
Columns & Departments
Fed. Cir. Vacates Lack of Written Description Ruling In Interference<br>Federal Circuit Vacates Unclear Application of “Causal Nexus” Requirement to Prove Irreparable Harm
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
A look at important cases in e-discovery so far this year.
Features
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
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
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
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
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.