Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

News Briefs

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

Features

Court Watch

Charles G. Miller & Darryl A. Hart

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

Features

Quiznos Beats Class Action: Disclaimer Clauses Commonly Used By Most Franchisors Upheld as Fully Enforceable

Charles G. Miller & Darryl A. Hart

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.

Ten Rules for Franchisors to Reduce Litigation Risks

John Edward Connelly, William L. Killion & Brian B. Schnell

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

IP News

Hany Rizkalla

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

Features

Earmarks and Trademarks Collide: Fourth Circuit Reverses District Court in The Last Best Beef, LLC v. Jonathan W. Dudas et al.

Jane Shay Wald

'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

Divided and Conquered? The Precarious Standing of Patent Licensees

Jonathan B. Tropp & Alexander ('Lex') Paulson

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

Pleading Standards in Patent Litigation After Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

Yekaterina Korostash

<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.

Working Capital Issues for the Law Firm

James D. Cotterman

This article explores issues pertaining to cash flow and cash needs of law firms.

Features

Managing Advanced Client Costs and Complying with IRS Rules

K. Jennie Kinnevy

If your firm is not treating advanced client costs as loans or assets, then you should form a plan to come into compliance with IRS guidelines.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Surveys in Patent Infringement Litigation: The Next Frontier
    Most experienced intellectual property attorneys understand the significant role surveys play in trademark infringement and other Lanham Act cases, but relatively few are likely to have considered the use of such research in patent infringement matters. That could soon change in light of the recent admission of a survey into evidence in <i>Applera Corporation, et al. v. MJ Research, Inc., et al.</i>, No. 3:98cv1201 (D. Conn. Aug. 26, 2005). The survey evidence, which showed that 96% of the defendant's customers used its products to perform a patented process, was admitted as evidence in support of a claim of inducement to infringe. The court admitted the survey into evidence over various objections by the defendant, who had argued that the inducement claim could not be proven without the survey.
    Read More ›
  • In the Spotlight
    On May 9, 2003, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts announced that Bayer Corporation, the pharmaceutical manufacturer, had been sentenced and ordered to pay a criminal fine of $5,590,800 stemming from its earlier plea of guilty to violating the Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act by failing to list with the FDA its drug product, Cipro, that was privately labeled for an HMO. Such listing is required under the federal Food, Drug &amp; Cosmetic Act. The Federal Prescription Drug Marketing Act, Pub. L. 100-293, enacted on April 22, 1988, as modified on August 26, 1992 by the Prescription Drug Amendments (PDA) Pub. L. 102-353, 106 Stat. 941, amended sections 301, 303, 503, and 801 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. '' 331, 333, 353, 381, to establish requirements for distributing prescription drug samples.
    Read More ›