Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
There is a general distrust and downright loathing of referees in the sports world. In the legal industry, however, lawyers are learning that the referee can be a powerful ally in deterring litigation and resolving cases early and successfully. While the legal profession will always have its fair share of Bobby Knights and John McEnroes, the referee appears to be gaining the upper hand.
Features
Recent news of importance to you and your practice.
Features
In a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB'), if your adversary is a foreign entity with no employees in the United States, can you compel an oral deposition of the entity in this country? 'No,' says the TTAB, through its Manual of Procedure ('TBMP'). 'Yes,' says the Fourth Circuit, relying on '24 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. '24 in <i>Rosenruist-Gestao E Servicos LDA v. Virgin Enterprises Ltd.</i>, 511 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2007).
Features
There have been numerous developments in U.S. criminal antitrust law over the last half-decade ' in legislation, judicial opinions, and the publicly stated enforcement policy of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). While none have been watershed events individually, in the aggregate they fundamentally impact representation of companies or individuals under investigation for antitrust violations. This article outlines the cumulative effect of these developments and indicates how representation of companies under antitrust investigation has changed over this period.
Features
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read format.
Features
On Jan. 15, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in <i>Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta</i>, the case that has been called 'the most important securities law case to reach the Court this decade' and 'the securities lawyer's <i>Roe v. Wade</i>.' While the case had both domestic and international corporations concerned about its potential to dramatically expand the scope of 10b-5 claims in order to target third parties doing business with public companies that concern can now be laid to rest.