Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Can a Notice of Opposition in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board give rise to an actual controversy under the Declaratory Judgment Act to support a trademark Applicant's federal declaratory judgment action against the Opposer? Generally, it can't ' or more accurately, it doesn't. But in <i>Neilmed Products, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc.</i>, the Northern District of California found that the Notice of Opposition pleaded detailed factors relevant to liability for trademark infringement and dilution.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the jurisdictional reach of U.S. courts to adjudicate patent disputes involving foreign patents. In <i>Voda v. Cordis</i>, a split panel held that even if the district court had the authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the foreign patent claims, the district court abused its discretion by exercising that authority. The court's opinion rests largely on comity and judicial economy considerations.
Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read list.
The First Department's recent decision in <i>Pultz v. Economakis</i>, N.Y.L.J., Feb. 22, 2007, at 18, col. 1, has garnered a remarkable amount of press coverage for what is a fundamentally unremarkable case. The decision primarily stands for the humble proposition that a court must interpret a statute in accordance with its clear and unambiguous language. Nevertheless, the First Department's steadfast defense of an owner's right to recover one of more apartments for his or her own personal use merits further analysis.
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently issued one of the first decisions in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to interpret '503(b)(9), an important new Bankruptcy Code provision passed under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act: <i>In re Bookbinders' Restaurant Inc.</i> '503(b)(9) is certain to impact the relationship between a debtor seeking to reorganize and the trade vendors that deal with it.
Features
This article outlines the requirements for providing notification of a security breach under state security breach notification laws by any company and the factors that a public company needs to take into account regarding whether to disclose a security breach under federal securities law.
A Florida intermediate-level appellate court has held that a lessee is not relieved of its payment obligations when it discovers that it cannot lawfully utilize the leased equipment in the manner it intended. <i>De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. v Cricket's Termite Control, Inc.</i> While the writer is aware of similar results reached in other unreported Florida actions, this decision, the first reported decision in Florida, not only will provide assistance in dealing with similar scenarios but also exhibits the strength of standard lease clauses.
Features
In 2005, the Superior Court of Rhode Island held that '44112 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code did not protect the owner and lessor of an aircraft from vicarious liability for negligence of a lessee of the aircraft. <i>Coleman v. Windham Aviation Inc.</i> In light of the decision in Windham (and others discussed below), owners, lessors, of aircraft must be aware of the possibility that a state court may very well impose vicarious liability.