Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The NLRB general counsel's July 29, 2014, ruling that McDonald's is a joint employer of those who work for its roughly 14,000 franchised restaurants in the United States continues to send ripples through both the legal and business worlds.
Columns & Departments
Bankrupt Festival Organizer Can Recover Buyout Payment It Made to Co-Founder<br>
Features
A former Facebook employee is suing the company for gender discrimination and harassment, claiming her supervisor belittled her at work and asked why she 'did not just stay home and take care of her child.'
Features
If there really is a'death squad for patents, it may not be found at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A more likely location is the Plano, TX, office of David O'Dell, chairman of Haynes and Boone's patent trials practice group.
Columns & Departments
CA District Court Misconstrues State Franchise Relations Act in Granting Transfer Motion<br>Franchisee Argues For Automatic Termination Under CFRA<br>GA Court Sends Determination of Whether a Distributor Is a Dealer to Jury
Columns & Departments
A look at a recent ruling in New York.
Features
The producer credited with launching Lady Gaga's career lost his bid to trim the $7.3 million he was ordered to pay a talent scout for introducing him to the singer.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit: Application by PTAB of Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard in Claim Construction Upheld Under the AIA
Features
In 2012, DISH Network announced two novel product offerings that would result in considerable backlash from the four major broadcast television networks and set in motion a three-year, wide-ranging, multi-front battle with the networks. As the dust now begins to settle, the copyright litigation has resulted in important precedents that will help define the boundaries under the Copyright Act for the multi-channel programming distribution industry.
Features
The Federal Circuit has long maintained that it is entitled to review a claim construction decision <i>de novo</i>, without deference to the district court. Over the years, this approach has led to a notably high reversal rate of district court claim construction decisions. This "two bites at the apple" approach remained controversial, and on Jan. 20, 2015, the Supreme Court rejected this blanket policy of <i>de novo</i> review in favor of a hybrid approach.