Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Who had a blue Christmas last year? Not retail e-commerce companies. Their holidays were decidedly green.
Although U2's Bono praised the virtues of a constant search for the object of his desire in song, anyone looking online for needed business information certainly won't find that quest quite as romantic, or enjoy spending time and money for the privilege.
Features
Habitually filing <i>Daubert</i> motions for every opposing expert is not smart trial practice. Here's why.
Features
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has restored the $28 million in punitive damages a Philadelphia jury awarded to an Illinois plaintiff who said drugmakers Wyeth and Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. failed to warn her doctor of the risks of breast cancer from using hormonal drugs. The trial judge had reduced the punitive damages award to $1 million.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
If the Federal Circuit affirms a lower court verdict holding a patent not invalid over a prior art reference, may the losing party ask the Patent Office to invalidate that patent via re-examination over the same prior art reference? In the case of <i>In re Construction Equipment</i>, the Federal Circuit answered yes, raising important issues bearing on the scope of the re-examination statute, the finality of judgments, and the relationship between the Patent Office and the federal judiciary under the separation of powers doctrine of the Constitution.
As explained in the introduction last month, this article explores the role of addiction in product liability litigation. Part Two herein explains the medical model of addiction, and addiction in the courtroom.
With the explosion of the Internet in the last several decades, courts have struggled with whether tortious conduct on a website is expressly aimed at any, or all, of the forums in which the website can be viewed. Two recent Ninth Circuit cases expanded the reach of Internet jurisdiction and may carry significant implications.
On Jan. 18, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-to-2 decision in <i>Golan v. Holder</i>, ruling that the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 — which restores U.S. copyright protection for certain foreign works formerly in the public domain — fits within Congress' constitutional authority to "adjust copyright law to protect categories of works once outside the law's compass." <i>Golan</i>, like <i>Eldred v. Ashcroft</i> before it, solidifies the constitutional authority of Congress under the Copyright Clause to control the terms and duration of U.S. copyright protection.