A proposed law to combat digital piracy stalled last year in the face of widespread public opposition, but district courts are embracing its controversial remedies against Internet companies that do business with alleged infringers in trademark cases.
With the explosion of social media one challenge is that much of the information posted in such venues is dross. But there are also the occasional invaluable kernels ' needles in the cyber haystack, as it were ' that provide opportunities for expanding your portfolio of work with existing or new clients.
A recent federal court ruling, <i>National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc.</i>, held that California's state disability rights laws applied to a website, despite the absence of a bricks-and-mortar store nexus. Instead, the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) pursued the accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of a "website only" firm with no real-world presence ' Netflix.
In <i>In Re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation</i>, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Form 18 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the required specificity when pleading direct patent infringement.
While on the surface the <i>Rosetta Stone</i> opinion might seem to be a public rebuke of the merits of Google's AdWords program, on closer scrutiny it is clear that the Fourth Circuit's opinion is more properly read as a reprimand of the district court, which, according to the Fourth Circuit, improperly mixed its standards of review and made a hash of the functionality doctrine in the process.
The emerging requirements for preservation solutions have created a two-fold need: identifying process solutions and the technology to support them. Fortunately, the market has seen growth in offerings aimed at meeting social media preservation strategies. This article explores some of these developments and provides a set of basic considerations to evaluate when assessing the technology.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
This article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.
That the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.
This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.
RPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.
