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
- Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent TrollsWith trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.Read More ›
- Risks of “Baseball Arbitration” in Resolving Real Estate Disputes“Baseball arbitration” refers to the process used in Major League Baseball in which if an eligible player's representative and the club ownership cannot reach a compensation agreement through negotiation, each party enters a final submission and during a formal hearing each side — player and management — presents its case and then the designated panel of arbitrators chooses one of the salary bids with no other result being allowed. This method has become increasingly popular even beyond the sport of baseball.Read More ›
- Private Equity Valuation: A Significant DecisionInsiders (and others) in the private equity business are accustomed to seeing a good deal of discussion ' academic and trade ' on the question of the appropriate methods of valuing private equity positions and securities which are otherwise illiquid. An interesting recent decision in the Southern District has been brought to our attention. The case is <i>In Re Allied Capital Corp.</i>, CCH Fed. SEC L. Rep. 92411 (US DC, S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2003). Judge Lynch's decision is well written, the Judge reviewing a motion to dismiss by a business development company, Allied Capital, against a strike suit claiming that Allied's method of valuing its portfolio failed adequately to account for i) conditions at the companies themselves and ii) market conditions. The complaint appears to be, as is often the case, slap dash, content to point out that Allied revalued some of its positions, marking them down for a variety of reasons, and the stock price went down - all this, in the view of plaintiff's counsel, amounting to violations of Rule 10b-5.Read More ›
- The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year LaterThe DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.Read More ›
- The DOJ Goes Phishing: The Rise of False Claims Act Cybersecurity LitigationWhile the DOJ Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative is still in its early stages and cybersecurity regulations are evolving, whistleblower plaintiffs have already begun leveraging the FCA to pursue alleged noncompliance with government cybersecurity requirements.Read More ›