In <i>John Wiley & Sons Inc., v. Kirtsaeng</i>,the Second Circuit took a stand against parallel importation of copyrighted works made under the authority of the U.S. copyright owner in a foreign country.
In <i>Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.</i>, the Supreme Court held that "willful blindness" may satisfy the knowledge element required for a finding of induced infringement. In so doing, the Court rejected the prior "deliberate indifference" standard articulated by the Federal Circuit.
Last month's article discussed relieving a parent of the duty to pay child support because a custodial parent has continually interfed with court-ordered visitation. The discussion continues herein.
Non-recognition statutes and other factors create issues that family law practitioners must be aware of in counseling same-sex couples planning for their future ' or those seeking to end their marriages. This article addresses many of those issues.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
