Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
The enforceability of franchise arbitration agreements took center stage in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals en banc decision in <i>Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc., American Arbitration Ass'n.</i> (2006) __ F.3d __, 2006 WL 3478345 ('<i>Nagrampa II</i>'). In a 7-4 ruling reversing the decision of the three-judge panel upholding arbitration ('<i>Nagrampa I</i>,' 401 F.3d 1024), the <i>Nagrampa II</i> court struck down the arbitration clause under California principles of unconscionability. Along the way, the court made significant holdings and observations that should garner the attention of franchise practitioners on both sides of the aisle.
Franchise law has long characterized franchise agreements as adhesion contracts (<i>see, Ticknor v. Choice Hotels Int'l</i>, 265 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2001) (Montana law); <i>Bolter v. Superior Court</i>, 87 Cal. App. 4th 900 (2001) (California law)). While no empirical data exist on the percentage of franchisors that will negotiate the terms of their franchise contract with prospective franchisees, it is fair to conclude that they remain a minority. To start the pre-sale disclosure process, a franchisor must present a prospect with the terms of its bona fide offer for the sale of a franchise. Frequently, these are the only terms the franchisor is prepared to accept.
Features
Part One of this series discussed the two types of reduction to practice: constructive and actual. This installment continues the discussion of satisfying the second prong of the actual reduction to practice test.
Features
When entering into a patent license, the most time is often spent on two issues: 1) how much money, and 2) what am I getting or granting for the money. Several recent appellate court decisions remind us that attention also needs to be paid to other provisions, as they can drastically affect one's rights. This article discusses three such decisions that address declaratory judgment actions, arbitration, and termination, that collectively remind us that the devil is in the details.
One of the most important questions facing a party going to trial in a patent action is whether a jury will help or hurt the party's chance of winning. Recent Federal Circuit and Supreme Court decisions confirm that patentees actually have considerable control over whether a judge or a jury decides the disputed facts. These decisions hold that the Seventh Amendment does not require a jury trial in patent cases where the relief sought is purely equitable, and the right to a jury trial can be lost if damages claims are dismissed. This article explores some of the legal and tactical considerations behind deciding whether to seek a jury trial.
The patentee usually thinks its case looks pretty good when patent litigation begins. Discovery can change the patentee's outlook. A new prior art reference may create unanticipated invalidity issues. The accused infringer's product may not be what was expected, and infringement becomes questionable. The amount of recoverable damages may be less than expected and may not exceed the patentee's anticipated legal fees and expenses. In all these circumstances, and more, the patentee may want to end the litigation before judgment.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
Features
When an insurance policy is written for a single year, little controversy exists regarding the limits of liability. Multi-year policies, those written for more than one annual period, and stub policies, those in effect for less than a year, are, however, becoming a source of disagreement. Particularly with long-tail claims such as asbestos, chemical exposures, and welding rod litigation triggering historic policies from the 1960s and 1970s, litigation on these issues is becoming ever more important. There is no established general rule regarding the available limits for these types of policies. Rather, courts apply a case-specific analysis of the evidence and policy language to determine the parties' intent regarding the policy's limits. Based on the policy language, or lack thereof, courts have, with limited exceptions, found full aggregate limits during each annual period for multi-year policies and an additional set of limits for stub policies. Such findings are supported by policy language, general legal principles, the economics of the parties' transactions, and industry practice.
The typical homeowner's property insurance policy 'loss settlement' provision provides that in the event of a covered loss to a dwelling, the insurer will pay the cost to repair or to replace without deduction for depreciation, but not exceeding the lesser of the following three amounts: (a) the limit of liability applicable to the dwelling; (b) the replacement cost of that part of the dwelling damaged (for like construction and use, or equivalent construction and use, or with comparable material and quality for the same use, or using materials of like kind and quality) on the same premises; or (c) the necessary amount actually spent to repair or to replace the damaged dwelling.
