Recent decisions have assaulted continuations on several fronts. Because of a new requirement to rescind claim scope disclaimers, it will be easier to avoid infringement of continuations, and because of strengthening enablement and written description requirements, more continuations will be invalidated on those grounds and on prior art grounds when priority claims are more easily broken. Consequently, care should be taken in the preparation and prosecution of any patent application claiming priority to another application.
<i>In re TS Tech</i> and, to a lesser extent for patent cases, <i>In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.</i>, have changed the landscape of ' 1404(a) cases in the Fifth Circuit. Patent cases that once would not have been transferred out of the Fifth Circuit may now be transferred based on <i>TS Tech.</i>
Recent decisions have begun to fill in the gaps left by <i>In re Seagate Technology, LLC.</i> They suggest that a competent opinion is still an effective defense to a willfulness charge, and that a jury may consider a defendant's failure to obtain an opinion when determining the defendant's intent for purposes of willfulness and inducement. Also, legitimate trial defenses may be sufficient to establish that a defendant's actions at the time of infringement were not "objectively reckless.
An insured's alleged failure to cooperate will not often be a successful defense to coverage. Furthermore, even if the claim may have some merit, there must be substantial prejudice, something that an insurer typically cannot prove while the underlying lawsuit is pending.
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.
