Features
e-Discovery Docket Sheet
Recent court rulings in e-discovery.
Features
Prepare for e-Discovery
With state laws governing the capture and securing of evidence ' including electronic data ' the possibility of spoliation is a genuine concern. Not only could evidence subjected to spoliation be inadmissible, but misdemeanor or felony charges could apply to the collector and the contracting party.<br>Identifying electronic evidence, much like in a physical crime scene, starts with drawing increasing concentric circles around the victim or perpetrator. Some care must be taken regarding a company's policies and practices. State and federal law on personal property may be involved if the employee used personal devices legally or illegally in combination with the company's assets, and a warrant or commencement of discovery may be required to access personal property or equipment on private property.
Features
In the Marketplace
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
Supreme Court to Review Obviousness Standard: Is a Higher Bar for Patentability Imminent?
In reviewing <i>KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc.</i> (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous <i>amicus</i> briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
Features
'No Sublicense' Rule Extended to Trademark and Publicity Rights: The Half-Century Saga of Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc.
It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. <i>See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc.</i> 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); <i>Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co.</i>, 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); <i>In re Patient Education Media, Inc,</i> 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. <i>See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?
Features
Betting on Litigation
For all the publicity that our litigious society generates, the decision to sue or not, or even to send a so-called lawyer letter, is often agonizing for any business owners or principals.<br>This dilemma is particularly strong for the smaller firms that compose so much of the e-commerce sector. While the media often perceives lawyers as nothing more than 'ambulance chasers' constantly looking for personal injury lawsuits to stock their personal treasuries, most businesses should prefer to resolve disputes outside the courtroom.
Features
Litigation
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Data Mining
The first part of this article discussed the importance and focus of data retrieval in matrimonial actions and the parameters of data mining. The conclusion herein addresses privacy concerns, the impact of e-mail, and the costs of data retrieval.
Features
'Equitable Paternity'
He who acts like a father is a father ' at least legally, even if not biologically. New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, concluded this in a recent ruling, imposing 'equitable paternity' on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a daughter and acted accordingly.
Features
State Ruling May Have National Impact
On March 27, 2006, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division decided a case that may have national implications because it involved federal law. <i>Pryce v. Scharff</i>, 384 N.J. Super. 197, 894 A.2d 668 (2006). Although this opinion went fairly unnoticed in the matrimonial community, its impact upon current and future litigation promises to be profound. To summarize briefly, the <i>Pryce</i> case involved the issue of whether overdue child support judgments should be subject to post-judgment interest. After reviewing the federal and state statutes and the current New Jersey Court Rules, the Appellate Division ruled in the affirmative.
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
- Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.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 ›
- The Article 8 Opt InThe Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.Read More ›