Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Law firms are constrained by professional ethics in how they address the issues of lawyer mobility. Rule 5.6 of the ABA Model Code of Professional Responsibility expressly prohibits lawyers from entering into agreements that restrict their right to practice, including covenants not to compete. The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions interpret the rule to preclude less direct restrictions on competition, including financial penalties known as 'forfeiture-for-competition' agreements.
Features
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Features
Quiznos successfully beat back a class action challenging its supplier arrangements in <i>Westerfeld v. The Quiznos Franchise Company.</i> One important aspect of this decision is that the Eastern District of Wisconsin court had no problem dismissing a class action challenge to Quiznos' supplier arrangements on the basis that various disclaimer clauses commonly used by most franchisors were fully enforceable and effective to bar the franchisees' fraud and RICO claims.
This is the conclusion of a two-part series in which we distill the best litigation-related advice for franchisors into 10 simple rules. The rules emphasize common sense, foresight, and recognition that skilled and successful franchisees are an indispensable element in overall system success.
Features
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Features
'Earmark' is a 16th century form of cattle branding. But this case presents a contemporary Congressional earmark that cut out the right of Last Best Beef, LLC to register or enforce its brand.
Features
This article discusses three recent Federal Circuit rulings that have set important new guidelines for which kinds of licensees will have independent standing to sue infringers, which will be compelled to join their patentees, and which will be left out in the cold.
Features
<i>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly</i>, a recent Supreme Court decision which addressed the sufficiency of pleadings for a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, has prompted defendants in a wide variety of actions, including patent cases, to file motions urging district courts to apply the 'new' Twombly pleading standard to dismiss the actions against them.