Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

LJN Newsletters

  • Many companies give away their coverage for IP claims because they accept their insurers' self-serving assessment that coverage does not exist. This article provides an overview of the issues that typically arise when determining the extent of coverage for IP claims under advertising injury coverage.

    July 31, 2008ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • 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.

    July 31, 2008Scott E. Gross
  • 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 Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., et al.

    July 31, 2008Joshua Horn and Beth L. Domenick
  • The court's refusal in Johnson & Johnson v. Karl, 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.

    July 31, 2008Diane E. Lifton and Michelle M. Bufano
  • 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.

    July 30, 2008John T. Delacourt and Christopher M. Loeffler
  • Recent developments you need to know.

    July 30, 2008Compiled by Matthew Berkowitz and Natasha Sardesai
  • Who's doing what; who's moving where.

    July 30, 2008ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
  • 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.

    July 30, 2008Charles H. Hooker III and Sara M. Vanderhoff
  • The latest news from the franchising world.

    July 30, 2008ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |