Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
If sued as a contributory infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), a software company can prevail if it establishes that the accused software has a substantial non-infringing use. In many cases addressing this issue, however, software companies have usually failed to establish this defense. This article summarizes the particular circumstances that gave rise to these failures, and proposes a particular scenario under which a defendant may succeed in showing that its software is suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
Features
Capmark's sale of its remaining Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Business is a recent example of the approval of a sale of assets under ' 363 of the Bankruptcy Code following the confirmation of a debtor's plan.
Features
Sometimes a lethal combination of a proceeding's cost and deleterious operational effect will result in forced liquidation rather than restructure. Such was the dilemma faced by economically troubled GGI in June 2010.
To help ensure client retention, firms need to put in place a long-term, multipronged client transition plan at least two years before a partner's retirement. With the eldest of the baby boomers turning 65 in 2011 that means such planning must begin now.
To remain competitive, it is important for law firms to peel away the financial layers of their businesses, identify potential problems, forecast future revenues, and manage their financial health.
The real challenge — and opportunity — facing today's law firm CFO is not improving his or her technical expertise, but rather gaining the support of law firm management to implement real, impactful change.
Features
No matter what the reason or replacement cycle, law firm computer technology should be a function of ROI. There is no one right or correct rate of return, but maximizing it is essential.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
In <i>Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.</i>, the Supreme Court expressly approved of the "willful blindness" tool for the first time. But in doing so, it framed the doctrine in a way that provided some much-needed limitations.
