LJN Newsletters

Recent rulings you need to know.

What rights does an employer have in an employee's patent? The short answer is, it depends. The employer may have a right of assignment — that is, a right to outright ownership of the patent. Another possibility is a so-called 'shop right,' in which the employee owns the patent, but the employer has a non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the invention in its business. There is also a distinct possibility that the employer has no rights whatsoever in the patent.

Recent litigation of interest to you and your practice.

In light of the complex and opaque nature of the subprime mortgage market, government investigators are probing the valuation and disclosure decisions made by market participants at multiple levels. It is not yet clear what charges prosecutors will assert to prove fraud claims against dishonest subprime market participants.

Sky-high loss enhancements are increasingly scrutinized in a post-Booker world. Drawing on civil securities law, recent decisions in several circuits endorse an approach holding a defendant responsible for only the portion of victims' losses that was proximately caused by the offense. Some courts' critical analyses bode well for future sentencings.

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.