Features
David P. Irmscher
&
Abigail M. Butler
The Supreme Court recently changed the longstanding rules for obtaining a permanent injunction in patent infringement cases. <i>eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC</i>, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006). Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in eBay, it was generally accepted that a successful plaintiff in a patent infringement trial was entitled to a permanent injunction virtually automatically. The Federal Circuit's rule was 'courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances.' The few exceptions to this rule were generally limited to situations where public health would be affected by enjoining the infringer.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
In-depth analysis of the latest rulings.
Features
Janice G. Inman
What happens when the U.S. Supreme Court hands you a loss? As anyone can tell you, this usually signals the end of the road, and defeat must be admitted. Not cowed by such a setback, however, is a Colorado woman on a mission to prevent from happening to anyone else what happened to her when law enforcement authorities refused to protect her children from their murderous father. Although she lost her bid to hold the city of Castle Rock, CO, liable for negligence under U.S. law, she has now gone to an international tribunal.
Features
Andrew Schepard
Other than holding that courts cannot use race as a criterion for decision (<i>Palmore v. Sidoti</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court has not delved deeply into defining the constitutional rights of divorcing parents in the context of a custody dispute. In <i>Shepp v. Shepp</i>, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently held that a divorced parent had a constitutional right to advocate his sincere religious belief in polygamy to his 9-year-old child.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.
Features
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Court Reminds Party Of Its Power to Appoint Computer Forensics Exam
Features
Victoria Woodlin Chavey
In employment class actions in federal court, such as class actions under Title VII for which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 provides the governing procedure, the most critical juncture in the case is often the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. That motion requires the court to evaluate whether the plaintiffs have met the Rule 23 requirements and may proceed as a class; denial of the motion generally deals a devastating blow to plaintiffs' claims. In a new ruling that employers can use to support their bids to defeat plaintiffs' motions for class certification under Rule 23, the Second Circuit recently clarified ' and strengthened ' the standard under which district courts should determine plaintiffs' satisfaction of Rule 23's requirements.
Features
H. Thomas Watson
When tortious conduct causes injuries, the plaintiff is allowed to recover as special damages the 'reasonable value' of the medical services needed to treat the injury. Today, determining what is the 'reasonable value' of health care services is becoming a more challenging task.
Features
Marion T.D. Lewis
Recently, the New York State Court of Appeals equitably estopped a man from denying paternity in order to protect the child's best interests. The man had no biological link to the child, but was deceived by his paramour into thinking that he was the father. <i>Matter of Shondel J. v. Mark D.</i>. The impact this ruling could have on same-sex couples and the children of their unions is potentially significant ' not just for couples in New York, but for same-sex couples in all states that value the best interests of the children of those unions.
Features
Stan Soocher
Stan Soocher shares the latest news.
