Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Many U.S. financial institutions that have participated in equipment leasing transactions (particularly in the large-ticket and municipal markets) in the last 20 years will be keenly aware that as the structures grew ever more complicated, Congress and the federal regulatory agencies grew intensely interested. Whether the institution had a major role in the transaction or simply provided a service, some degree of scrutiny could be expected, often in conjunction with a tax audit of its client. The risks to financial institutions from participating in complex structured finance transactions of all types became a source for concern for banking and securities regulators. The principal federal regulators responded in 2004 with a proposal that financial institutions investigate, and bear responsibility for evaluating, the legal, tax, and accounting basis of their clients' complex structured finance transactions. The goal: to limit the institutions' own credit, legal, and reputational risk from such participation.
The federal government is stepping up its aggressive enforcement of anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism ('AML/CFT'). Enforcement actions have already spread beyond 'traditional' financial institutions, such as banks. Regulations that are expected to be promulgated soon will likely embolden these enforcement actions against leasing companies, equipment vendors, finance companies, and other 'financial institutions.' These parties should reassess their compliance risk under the AML/CFT rules. The consequences of these risks are important. For example, the loss of reputation from being brushed with the taint of money laundering can sink a business.
Features
In reviewing <i>KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc.</i> (No. 04-1350), the Supreme Court is set to tackle one of the fundamental issues of patentability ' the standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. '103. As expected, this case has generated significant interest and numerous <i>amicus</i> briefs have been filed. With oral argument expected to be heard late this month, this case marks the first time in 30 years that the Court will examine this particular issue.
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
Blogs can reach millions of readers long before the employer learns about a potentially worrisome posting. No laws specifically regulate blogging per se, and there's virtually no guiding case law. And so, employers must look elsewhere for guidance on balancing employees' interest in life away from work and ensuring that employees' blogging doesn't damage business interests; that elsewhere is a new destination on the company document roster: a blogging policy.
Features
It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. <i>See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc.</i> 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); <i>Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co.</i>, 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); <i>In re Patient Education Media, Inc,</i> 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. <i>See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?
Features
Traditionally, job-termination notices took the form of a pink slip of paper that employees found in their mailbox or in the envelope carrying their paycheck.<br>Recently, however, tech retailer Radio Shack used e-mails to give more than 400 employees notice of their involuntary separation from the firm. That move probably wasn't the use of technology many in the e-commerce, or the bricks-and-mortar, world envisioned for the business sector.
U.S. Patent Laws, amended by the passage of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 ('the Act'), now provide for publication of pending patent applications prior to issuance. 35 U.S.C. '122(b). Since the effective date of the amendment, Nov. 29, 2000, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ('USPTO') publishes domestic utility applications within 18 months of their earliest priority date. Prior to this amendment, patent applications were not made publicly available until a patent issued, thereby preserving the confidential information of a patentee until remedies for patent infringement were made available to the patentee.
Features
For all the publicity that our litigious society generates, the decision to sue or not, or even to send a so-called lawyer letter, is often agonizing for any business owners or principals.<br>This dilemma is particularly strong for the smaller firms that compose so much of the e-commerce sector. While the media often perceives lawyers as nothing more than 'ambulance chasers' constantly looking for personal injury lawsuits to stock their personal treasuries, most businesses should prefer to resolve disputes outside the courtroom.
