The doctrine of copyright misuse is a fairly recent development in copyright law. Since it was first recognized less than 20 years ago, the judicially created doctrine has emerged as a valid defense in at least several circuits, while other courts have been reluctant to accept it.
On Aug. 1, 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO') issued a final rulemaking action titled 'Miscellaneous Changes to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Rules' (the 'Amendments'). This article summarizes the most significant Amendments affecting Board inter partes proceedings.
Whether the ends justify the means is a question that arises in many areas of the law. One such debate is brewing with respect to legal protections for anonymous whistleblowers.
Franchise attorneys are quite familiar with management buyouts ('MBOs') and have perhaps assisted or consulted in such transactions. Now comes along a new phenomenon in international franchising: master franchisee buyouts ('MFBOs'). An introduction to MFBOs follows, using examples of two recent transactions.
Recent national rulings of interest to you and your practice.
XYZ Inc. settles a federal criminal investigation by signing a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). Now its attorneys think the company and its privileged documents are safe so long as XYZ stays out of trouble. But have they closed the barn door after the horse has run away? A little-noticed holding by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in the KPMG tax shelter case suggests that a DPA may open privileged documents to defendants in criminal trials and even to civil litigants.
This article reviews the In re Commercial Money Center case and its practical implications, provides an overview of some proposed amendments to the UCC with respect to such problems, and discusses suggestions of how to protect clients in the post-CMC environment.
Accused of withholding a DNA report favorable to the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case, Durham, NC, District Attorney Mike Nifong reached for an argument familiar to defense attorneys: Even if he didn't produce a report identifying exculpatory DNA results, he did produce documents containing those results ' among over a 1,000 pages of related documents produced before trial. Of course, the North Carolina Bar found that Nifong did more than simply bury favorable evidence in a document production. Assume, however, that he had produced exculpatory DNA results, and even a report explaining them, in thousands of pages of documents, but defense counsel didn't find them. Did he satisfy his disclosure obligations?
Since Sarbanes-Oxley ('SOX') became law in 2002, companies have had a heightened interest in determining if there has been wrongdoing within their business. When a company has reason to believe that one or more employees may have engaged in practices that could expose it and them to civil lawsuits, regulatory actions or criminal charges, good business practice calls for the company to find out what occurred, who was involved, how extensive the conduct was, and how it happened. From the very beginning of this process, a particularly difficult issue is what employees interviewed in the company's investigation should be told about getting their own lawyers.
