Columns & Departments
ljnstaff
Who's going where; Who's doing what.
Columns & Departments
ljnstaff
What will happen to the Affordable Care Act now that President-Elect Trump has vowed to abolish it?
Columns & Departments
ljnstaff
On Nov. 17, 2016, JPMorgan APAC, a Hong Kong subsidiary of JP Mor¬gan Chase & Co., agreed to pay $72 million for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).
Columns & Departments
ljnstaff
Expert discussion of several pivotal cases.
Features
John W. Cerreta
<b><i>A Doctrine In Flux</b></i><p>The big product-liability news at the Connecticut Supreme Court in 2016 was undoubtedly <i>Izzarelli v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco</i>, a decision that refined Connecticut's standards for design-defect product-liability claims. But the decision may turn out to be even more notable for what it portends.
Features
Spencer Hamer
Non-compete clauses in employment contracts typically seek to preclude employees from working for a competitor for a specific period of time and within a specific geographic area. Most states allow non-competition agreements, provided they are reasonable in scope and justified by the employer's legitimate business interests. California, however, generally prohibits covenants not to compete, subject to limited exceptions.
Columns & Departments
ljnstaff
New York's Appellate Division, Second Department, has reversed a family court decision denying a father's objection to a magistrate's upward modification of his child support obligation.
Features
Jan Wolfe
In a win for the tech industry, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 14 to hear a case that could move patent cases out of the Eastern District of Texas.
Features
Joshua D. Curry
&
Kate E. Hart
The Federal Circuit's <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Williamson v. Citrix Online</i> expanded the potential application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, making it more likely that functional claim language will be construed as a means-plus-function limitation even in the absence of the word "means." This article discusses recent decisions applying <i>Williamson</i> and provides practical insights and strategies for patent owners and accused infringers to consider when addressing the expanded application of §112, ¶6.
Features
Joseph F. Savage, Jr.
&
Kate E. MacLeman
<b><i>Briseno v. ConAgra</b></i><p>The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) has historically allowed prosecutors to charge corporate employees with misdemeanors without having to prove personal participation or wrongful intent. But, as the use of the statute has become more frequent and penalties have gotten more severe, the constitutionality of such an application of the FDCA has come under heightened scrutiny.
