Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
More and more, parties are attempting to introduce social networking communications into evidence. Beyond other admissibility obstacles, such as hearsay or relevance, a piece of evidence must satisfy Fed. R. Evid. 901 (or the state equivalent), which applies in both civil and criminal proceedings, and mandates that the material offered is "authentic," or what the proponent claims it to be.
Until recently, New York courts — the venue for much of the seminal insurance law developed in the United States — had not directly weighed in on the allocated share set-off rule. Recently, however, a New York trial judge issued a partial summary judgment decision that expressly adopted the rule in the context of long-tail asbestos claims.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
<i>Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.</i>, is an important decision that abolishes the presumption of irreparable harm in the context of injunctive relief for patent infringement. The case is also important because the Federal Circuit instructs that courts must still consider "the fundamental nature of patents as property rights granting the owner the right to exclude" when determining whether to issue an injunction.
A newly expanded Patent Office program makes it easier to talk to the examiner prior to initial examination. The heart of the program is an "Examiner Interview" that takes place before the examiner issues a first official action, which allows the examiner and patent applicant to discuss the application, identify allowable patent claims, and shave months or years off of the time from filing of an application to receipt of an issued patent.
Features
Now is the time for trademark, domain name and brand owners to purchase .XXX domains to pro-actively race to stake a claim in their brand ' if only as a defensive measure to prevent other domain owners from registering/using their name in a .XXX context. In the event that yours wasn't the first hand to pull the trigger in the .XXX domain name shoot 'em up, what are the ramifications of having your mark incorporated into an active .XXX domain?