Features
Proposed Class in Hulu Privacy Suit Needs Objective Data
With eye-popping damages at stake, a federal magistrate refused to allow consumer plaintiffs to move forward as a class with claims that Hulu violated their privacy by sharing the videos they viewed.
Features
Supreme Court Mandates More Patent Claim Clarity
In <i>Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.</i>, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the test for patent claim definiteness in 35 U.S.C. '112, '2 (2006) "require[s] that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty."
Columns & Departments
Decisions of Interest
An in-depth look at various key cases.
Features
Facebook Threats Case to Get S. Ct. Review
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon be grappling with classic First Amendment principles in the modern-day social-media context of a case involving threatening posts on Facebook.
Features
Information Governance
The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules has proposed another round of Rules amendments. If enacted, the resulting package of amendments could affect most aspects of federal discovery practice and possibly decrease eDiscovery burdens and costs for courts, clients, and counsel alike.
Features
Losing Customer Data Means Losing Customers, Period
Becoming the next Target can be toxic for companies, particularly those in the finance, health-care and retail sectors, which usually collect and store customers' personally identifiable information (PII).
Features
Divided Infringement after the Supreme Court's Decision in <i>Akamai</i>
In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. '271(b) requires an act of direct infringement under '271(a) ' that is, one entity must perform all steps of a claimed method.
Columns & Departments
In the Courts
Analysis of two pivotal rulings.
Features
<i>BREAKING NEWS</i>Supreme Court Sides with Broadcasters in Fight over Online Streaming Service
Online streaming startup Aereo Inc. violated the copyrights of major television broadcast networks by retransmitting programs to users' Internet devices for a fee, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 25.
Features
Issues in Valuing Celebrity Estate Publicity Rights
The IRS has recognized the right to publicity and the need to appraise this asset for estate tax purposes. But valuing the right of publicity of a deceased celebrity can be difficult, and wrought with assumptions and speculation.
Need Help?
- Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
- Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.
MOST POPULAR STORIES
- Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright LawsThis article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.Read More ›
- "Holy Fair Use, Batman": Copyright, Fair Use and the Dark KnightThe copyright for the original versions of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse have expired. Now, members of the public can create — and are busy creating — their own works based on these beloved characters. Suppose, though, we want to tell stories using Batman for which the copyright does not expire until 2035. We'll review five hypothetical works inspired by the original Batman comic and analyze them under fair use.Read More ›
- Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.Read More ›
- Removing Restrictive Covenants In New YorkIn Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?Read More ›