LJN Newsletters

  • Lucent v. Gateway

    On Sept. 11, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Court issued an opinion in the case of Lucent Technologies Inc. et al. v. Gateway Inc. et al. In its ruling, the CAFC found that "the damages evidence of record was neither very powerful, nor presented very well by either party" and that the plaintiff's damages calculation "lacked sufficient evidentiary support." The CAFC therefore vacated the district court's award and remanded the case for a new trial on damages.

    November 30, 2009Michael K. Milani and Eric Carnick

  • Court-Appointed Experts in Patent Infringement Cases

    Under the recent Federal Circuit opinion in MMonolithic Power Systems v. O2 Micro InternationalM, courts are permitted to appoint their own technical experts to aid in understanding complex technology involved in patent suits. Such court-appointed experts may even testify before the jury, raising concerns about undue influence and encroachment on the jury's decisional role. As discussed in this article, Monolithic appears to have left these concerns somewhat unresolved, creating a likelihood that they will arise again in future patent cases.

    November 30, 2009Mary M. Calkins, Debra A. Lange and Carlos Flores LaBoy

  • IP News

    Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

    November 30, 2009Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Matthew Berkowitz

  • Corporate Mergers and the Transferability of Software Licenses

    Anti-assignment clauses are typically inserted into license agreements to preclude the introduction of an unwanted third party into the parties' relationship, giving the licensor more control over its valuable property and with whom it ultimately does business. In the context of software licenses, ordinarily a court will apply state law to contractual disputes, but federal law pre-empts state law concerning questions of copyright law or policy, which include the assignability of non-exclusive agreements.

    November 30, 2009Edward A. Pisacreta and Marc S. Reisler

  • Tweet, Tweet

    So is a tweet on the Twitter networking site protected by copyright law? The question is complex and without a definitive answer. The prevailing opinion is no, but with some possible exceptions.

    November 30, 2009Kyle-Beth Hilfer

  • In Re BilskiM: Patent Eligibility of Business Methods Under 35 U.S.C. ' 101

    On Nov. 9, 2009, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in In re Bilski ' a case that will likely impact whether business methods are eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. ' 101. To date, the Supreme Court has held that abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not patent eligible, but has yet to apply that holding to a business method.

    November 30, 2009Julia S. Kim

  • Movers & Shakers

    Who's doing what; who's going where.

    November 30, 2009ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Case Briefs

    Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

    November 30, 2009Dennis Brown and Jessica F. Pardi

  • Business Interruption Coverage

    Business Interruption coverage is contained in most first-party commercial property insurance and is meant to provide coverage where there is a suspension of business caused by direct physical loss to the property. Such policies also contain a "Civil Authority" provision, which typically states that the insurer will pay business income losses caused by the action of civil authority that prohibits access to the described premises due to direct physical loss of or damage to property, other than the described premises, caused by or resulting from a Covered Cause of Loss.

    November 30, 2009Rachel A. Meese

  • 'Prejudice'

    It is fairly well established in many courts across the United States that "late notice" of a claim under an occurrence-based commercial general liability ("CGL") policy presents a problem for insureds only when it "actually" and "substantially prejudices" an insurer. In light of that standard, insurers appear to face high hurdles if they rely on notice issues to avoid coverage. At the very least, it seems that the question of prejudice is highly factual and thus should be preserved for a jury to decide.

    November 30, 2009Linda D. Kornfeld and Cameron H. Faber