Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
When an employee is injured on the job, the claim is usually handled through the Workers' Compensation system. Indeed, it is relatively rare for a worker, even one who has been seriously injured, to sue his or her employer in tort because of the 'exclusive remedy' feature of most Workers' Compensation Acts. That feature, also known as the 'Workers' Compensation bar,' directs all such claims to the compensation system unless an enumerated exception applies. Nonetheless, because there are such exceptions, employers frequently purchase 'Workers' Compensation/Employers Liability' ('WC/EL') policies, which provide insurance not only for claims brought through Workers' Compensation but also for claims brought in the civil court system.
Features
A recent study commissioned by the Equipment Leasing and Financing Association of America ('ELFA') and produced by The Alta Group examines how U.S. businesses and other organizations acquire critical information technology ('IT') equipment and what factors influence the decision-making processes.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
Features
In the past, I have written a number of articles directed at U.S. leasing professionals on what they should know about doing business in Canada. These past articles have focused on the leasing business in general as opposed to any particular sector. They discussed broad issues, such as withholding tax and regulatory concerns, but did not examine the specifics of any particular class of collateral or industry sector. During the past several months, I have received a number of inquiries from U.S. lessors in regard to the financing of motor vehicles in Canada. It became readily apparent that not only are there significant differences in law and practice affecting Canadian and U.S. lessors, there also exists a general misunderstanding of the laws of Canada. While generally, Canadian and U.S. law and practice are similar, one area in which they are divergent is motor vehicles. This article, while far from being a complete guide, provides certain guidance as to the most significant concerns.