Some of the law firms mentioned in this issue have provided Marketing the Law Firm with marketing materials for consideration for inclusion in the MLF 50. There is no connection to any editorial contributions from the firms and the commentary is solely that of the author, who does not receive any compensation from the firms mentioned.
The crisis in the subprime mortgage markets has brought to light many allegations of predatory practices by mortgage lenders and other participants in the housing industry. In <i>Barkley v. Olympia Mortgage Co.</i>, Judge Raymond Dearie of the Eastern District approved a strategy that might permit some victims of the alleged fraud to obtain a federal forum, with the possibility of treble damages and attorneys fees: allege (and prove) that the predatory practices constituted a form of racial discrimination.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
