Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
The latest cases for your review.
Features
Accounting-Malpractice Claim/Arbitration<br>Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement/Interlocutory Appeal<br>Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity<br>Copyright-Infringement Filing/Bankruptcy Purchase
Features
Recent court rulings in e-discovery.
Features
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
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
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
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?