Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Features

'New' Summit Structure Retains Distribution Fees Image

'New' Summit Structure Retains Distribution Fees

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Summit Entertainment's $1 billion movie financing deal ' which created a new production and distribution studio ' all started with a group of bankers and lawyers sitting around and talking about how to get more money from movie-financing deals. In recent years, investors have invested in films that are distributed by studios, which take a distribution fee of about 10% to 15%. With the Summit deal, the investors for the first time cut the middleman in this process.

Cameo Clips Image

Cameo Clips

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Digital Downloading/No Public Performance; Management Agreements/Tortious Interference.

Features

Decision of Note: Mexican TV Co. Can Proceed in Florida Fed Court Image

Decision of Note: Mexican TV Co. Can Proceed in Florida Fed Court

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided that a Florida federal district court, rather than a Mexican court, should hear a suit by one Spanish-language broadcaster against another for tortious interference with a soap-opera actor's contract.

Supreme Court Re-Invigorates 'Obviousness': KSR v. Teleflex Decision Image

Supreme Court Re-Invigorates 'Obviousness': KSR v. Teleflex Decision

Benjamin Hershkowitz

On April 30, 2007, Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in <i>KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.</i>, reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ('Federal Circuit') and, in effect, re-invigorating obviousness under 35 U.S.C. &sect;103 as an available defense to a patent.

Trademark Fair-Use Analysis Hits Snag Image

Trademark Fair-Use Analysis Hits Snag

Steven M. Weinberg

Few issues in trademark and advertising law can compete in importance with this: whether a competitor can use another's trademark in advertising its products or services. With the battle for consumer attention growing increasingly aggressive as the number of products and services proliferate, and the means for advertising and promoting them expanding at an even more alarming rate, the importance of brands and their recognition by consumers ' and the surrounding legal issues ' have never been more significant.

Product-By-Process Claim Construction: Conflict in Federal Circuit Precedent Remains Unresolved Image

Product-By-Process Claim Construction: Conflict in Federal Circuit Precedent Remains Unresolved

Jonathan S. Caplan & Mary W. Richardson

Construing claims that use the process by which a product is created to define the invention ' that is, product-by-process claims ' was not made any easier by the Federal Circuit's recent decision in <i>SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.</i>, 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Federal Circuit again declined to resolve the long-standing conflict between two decisions ' the 1991 decision in <i>Scripps Clinic &amp; Res. Foun. v. Genentech Corp.</i>, 927 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1991), which held that product-by-process claims <i>should not</i> be limited by the process steps in the claims, (<i>i.e.</i>, such claims cover an identical end-product regardless of the steps used) and the 1992 decision in <i>Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp.</i>, 970 F.2d 834 (Fed. Cir. 1992), which held that product-by-process claims <i>should</i> be construed to only cover the end-product if produced by the specifically claimed process steps. As explained below, this state of affairs warrants that patent applicants and litigants stay tuned to the case law and adjust their respective claim drafting and analysis strategies accordingly.

<b><i>Online Exclusive: </b></i>Supreme Court Hands Gift to Employers Image

<b><i>Online Exclusive: </b></i>Supreme Court Hands Gift to Employers

Tony Mauro

The Supreme Court on May 29 made it significantly easier for employers to defend against Title VII workplace discrimination claims that are based on long-ago decisions about salary and raises.

Corporate Exposure Under the Alien Tort Claims Act Image

Corporate Exposure Under the Alien Tort Claims Act

Jonathan Drimmer

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's effort to restrict and clarify the Alien Tort Claims Act ('ATCA'), the divergence between judicial interpretations of the law, and the number of ATCA lawsuits continues to grow. Some courts have construed the ATCA narrowly, as the Supreme Court urged, limiting the cases that can be brought. Others have interpreted the Act broadly, recognizing novel claims and theories of liability. Emblematic of that schism are two cases decided last year, one filed in New York involving an energy company's role in oil development in Sudan, and one in California involving Papua New Guinea mining operations. These ATCA cases and others like them are part of a rising wave of high-stakes litigation against corporations and their executive officers, and necessitate especially careful attention by in-house counsel regarding overseas operations.

Features

The Employee Freedom of Choice Act Image

The Employee Freedom of Choice Act

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

After years of lobbying, the Employee Free Choice Act was introduced in 2003, but did not advance. Similar legislation was proposed again in 2005, co-sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Rep. George Miller (D-CA). While it did not pass either the House or Senate, it attracted widespread notice by gaining the support of 44 Senators and 215 Representatives (only three short of the 218 House votes required for passage). Predictably, in early February 2007, with the new Democratic Congress now in power, Rep. Miller, in his role as Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, reintroduced this proposed legislation (H.R. 800) containing all three items on the labor movement's wish list.

Features

Whistleblowing with a French Twist Image

Whistleblowing with a French Twist

Myrtille Lapuelle & Tristan Fuller

Last month, we discussed the fact that whistleblowing in France is a rather unwelcome legal obligation. France's total opposition to whistleblowing has softened over time and has been accompanied by a greater understanding and appreciation of its implications. Nevertheless, strong pervasive principles of French law continue to govern this domain. We referred our readers to a recent report on Whistleblowing and Ethical Charters, which was commissioned by the French Minister of State for Employment and Professional Insertion. The Antonmatt'i-Vivien report was aimed at encouraging the analysis and clarification of this grey area of French law. We continue this month with a look at how whistleblowing is implemented in France.

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

  • The Article 8 Opt In
    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.
    Read More ›
  • Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
    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.
    Read More ›
  • Rights and Obligations In Patent Licenses
    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.
    Read More ›
  • Foreseeability as a Bar to Proof of Patent Infringement
    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 &mdash; especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
    Read More ›