The Federal Circuit recently held that an applicant's failure to disclose material notes to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office can result in a finding of inequitable conduct that may render a patent, and even related patents, unenforceable.
In the quickly evolving world of e-discovery, the time to figure out and understand the organization's ESI is speeding by. The FRCP amendments and the courts that enforce them (both Federal and State) no longer provide a grace period where attorneys and litigants can 'fly blind' regarding ESI and figure things out as they go. If corporate counsel or supporting outside counsel is unsure of how to identify, preserve or collect ESI for a pending matter or in the overall course of conducting business, the time to ask for directions is now.
In Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, the District Court of Massachusetts ruled that sponsored linking qualifies as 'use in commerce' for purposes of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. Although the court ultimately found no likely consumer confusion in this case, in holding that sponsored linking falls within the purview of the Lanham Act, the court joins a growing number of circuits and districts that have failed to take a cue from well-settled, and clearly analogous, offline trademark principles.
When a business needs to raise money it may consider hiring a 'finder,' which is normally a consultant that helps the company find investors in the business. The company should proceed with caution in retaining a finder due to the regulated nature of its business, and there are several 'market' terms in a written Finder's Fee Agreement that the company should insist upon.
The fallout from Hewlett-Packard's ('HP') controversial boardroom leak investigation has led to a variety of actions ' including an investigation by the California Attorney General's office and Congressional hearings on the practice of 'pretexting' ' a tactic employed by Hewlett-Packard to gain the confidential phone records of board members. Despite the considerable press attention devoted to the incident, it is an otherwise under-the-radar action by the SEC that could have the greatest long-term impact on corporate governance and compliance.
Two types of contract clauses are commonly cited when a buyer or financing source desires not to make good on its commitment. These clauses are material adverse change (MAC) clauses and termination fee clauses. Several recent cases show that good draftsmanship and a clear understanding of their intended effect are essential in heading off disputes when implementing these provisions.
This edition of the Quarterly State Compliance Review includes a look at legislation of interest to corporate lawyers, that recently went into effect in Delaware and California, and a look at recent decisions of interest dealing with derivative suits from the high courts of Delaware, New York and California.
With the ever-increasing focus on security, wage and hour class actions create potential liability for a variety of employers, from airport vendors to power plants to retailers. Fortunately for these employers and others, the recent, yet limited, case law has held that such time is not compensable. Moreover, general wage and hour principles support this conclusion.
Lucent Technologies Inc. recently secured a non-prosecution agreement from the DOJ and settled an enforcement action with the SEC for conduct related to travel and entertainment expenses incurred on behalf of Chinese government officials. This article examines the Lucent settlement together with prior FCPA enforcement activity related to travel and lodging, and offers some practical advice for compliance counsel.
