Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Even in the absence of discrimination itself, juries often find employers guilty of retaliation with no more evidence than the short time between the employee's complaint and the alleged retaliatory act. Here's what to do.
Features
Electronically stored information ('ESI') is not an issue that can be put on the back burner and dealt with in a piecemeal fashion after litigation ensues. The painful results of such an approach were the subject of Magistrate Judge Grimm's recent decision in <i>Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., et al.</i>
Features
The court's refusal in <i>Johnson & Johnson v. Karl</i>, to recognize the learned intermediary doctrine and rejection of it wholesale lacks a sound basis. It is a legal aberration that warrants a prompt legislative response to codify the learned intermediary doctrine in West Virginia.
Features
In a case closely watched by intellectual property holders, the D.C. Circuit has provided new guidance on the potential antitrust consequences of the failure to disclose patent rights during a standard setting proceeding.
The Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in <i>Quanta Computer, Inc., et. al. v. LG Electronics, Inc.</i>, expands the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine and redefines an area of patent law that had been subject to considerable confusion for decades.
Features
After almost seven years since inception, the lawsuit by adidas against Payless ShoeSource, Inc. ended at the trial level with a jury verdict against Payless in the amount of $305 million. Payless was found guilty of willful federal trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark and trade dress dilution, and state-law unfair and deceptive trade practices as a result of its sale of footwear bearing confusingly similar imitations of adidas's famous Three-Stripe Mark and Superstar Trade Dress.
Features
The latest news from the franchising world.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that a trial court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction over a patent or copyright infringement case where all sales of accused products to U.S. customers were made f.o.b. in Canada by a Canadian corporation.
