Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Home Topics

Litigation

Features

<i><b>Commentary</i> Lessons in Decision on Nash Bridges Actor Services Agreement</b>

Schuyler M. Moore

The recent decision in <i>Don Johnson Productions Inc. (DJP) v. Rysher Entertainment LLC</i> packed a punch on a number of important issues.

Features

Decisions of Interest

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Analysis of two major cases.

Features

NJ & CT News

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

What's happening in neighboring states.

Features

Case Notes

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Analysis of a recent First Circuit decision.

Features

Kiobel and the Future of Environmental and Product Liability Litigation Under the Alien Tort Statute

Daniel J. Herling, Eric Gotting, Michelle Gillette & Leila Qutami

Companies should be aware of the potential impact that the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Kiobel</i> could have on litigation risks, both here and outside of the United States.

Features

Case Briefs

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

Features

Avoiding the Excess Layers

William P. Shelley & Samantha Evans

Several courts have recently held that an insured bears the burden of demonstrating proper exhaustion of underlying policies, including where multiple policies are involved in a settlement. These decisions have prevented insureds from accessing millions of dollars in excess coverage based on the unambiguous exhaustion language included in the operative excess policies.

Features

Your Genes Are Not Patent Eligible, But Your 'Isolated' Genes Are

Veronica Mu'oz

In a closely followed case involving the patentability of DNA sequences of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which account for most forms of inherited breast and ovarian cancer, the Federal Circuit largely followed its prior 2011 ruling and again held that isolated DNA sequences are patent-eligible subject matter.

Features

Bit Parts

Stan Soocher

Counsel Concerns<br>Puzo Estate's Claim of Breach of 1969 Godfather Agreement Not Preempted by Federal Copyright Law<br>Subsequent Purchaser of Network Rights Not Liable for Royalties to Original Seller

Features

No Injunction In Video-on-Demand Litigation

Eric Osterberg

The digital content era has moved patent issues to the forefront for the entertainment industry. In one recent case, even after winning a patent infringement case, a video-on-demand company still may not get an injunction prohibiting ongoing infringement by defendant Verizon Communications.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›