Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Features
In <i>Quanta Computer</i>, many observers believed that the Court would address whether, and to what extent, a party can contractually restrict application of the patent exhaustion doctrine, under which patent rights covering a product are extinguished when the product is sold without restriction. Instead, the Court's decision in <i>Quanta</i> appears to be relatively narrow, confirming that the sale of unpatented components can exhaust a system patent that is substantially, but not completely, embodied by those components, but leaving open the broader question of whether parties can contractually limit application of the patent exhaustion doctrine to the detriment of downstream good faith purchasers.
Features
Medical Services Must Be Legally Rendered to Qualify for Payment
More and more frequently, insurers are including 'choice of forum' provisions in their policies in which these insurers identify a particular state or country where coverage litigation 'must' be pursued. While in the past few decades a body of law has developed in federal courts that provides some support for this approach, the standard is not nearly as rigid as insurers would have their insureds and courts overseeing coverage litigation believe.
Features
A majority of courts consider the <i>contra proferentem</i> doctrine to be a pillar of insurance law. The doctrine requires ambiguous terms in an insurance policy to be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage for the insured. A prominent rationale behind the doctrine is that insurance policies are usually standard-form contracts drafted entirely by insurers.
