LJN Newsletters

Part One of this series discussed special perfection rules for purchase money security interest in inventory and additional risks when leased goods are 'inventory.' This second installment addresses: buyer in ordinary course of business under revised Article '9-320(A); power to transfer and entrusting under '2-403; and rights of buyers and Sublessee in ordinary course under '2A-305.

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.

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

In reviewing KSR Int'l v. Teleflex, Inc. (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 amicus 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.

It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc. 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co., 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); In re Patient Education Media, Inc, 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. See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios, 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?