Recent rulings.

Everything contained in this issue, in an easy-to-read-format.

When a property owner fails to pay real estate taxes, due process requires that the state make reasonable efforts to notify the owner of the resulting foreclosure proceeding. State and local statutory schemes often require the state to notify the owner by regular or certified mail. But if the notification is returned unclaimed or undeliverable, must the state make additional efforts to notify the owner? In <i>Jones v. Flowers</i>, 2006 U.S. Lexis 3451, the Supreme Court recently addressed this question, and held that when notice of a tax sale, sent certified mail, is returned to the state unclaimed, the due process clause requires the State to take 'additional reasonable steps' to provide notice to the property owner prior to the sale. The language of the Jones opinion casts doubt on the validity of the leading New York case on this issue, <i>Kennedy v. Mossafa</i>, 100 N.Y.2d 1.

Features

The right of publicity ' the right of individuals to protect the commercial uses of their names and images ' is now a familiar concept. Given the recently reported $50 million purchase of rights to Muhammad Ali's name or the $100 million acquisition of Elvis Presley's publicity rights (hardly for a song), there can be no question that the right not only can have great value, but has achieved a certain settled status. And yet, the metes and bounds of the right remain elusive at best.

Features

In a recent decision involving a trademark settlement agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in <i>Liberto v. D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc.</i>, found that a final judgment in a trademark infringement action did not preclude a further action involving claims of trademark infringement, breach of contract, and the defense of incontestability. 441 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2006). The case highlights the significance of including certain important terms in a settlement agreement involving a trademark license.

Your client spends considerable time, money, and energy pursuing an individual who is infringing his patent. Just when your client is about to have his day in court, the culprit files a petition for bankruptcy, triggering the automatic stay and stopping the infringement action in its tracks. Has the infringer escaped liability for his infringement, particularly when the bankruptcy court grants him a discharge? Not necessarily.

Features

Should a patent licensee who fully complies with the terms of its license be precluded from bringing a declaratory judgment action against the patent owner in order to challenge the validity of the patent? On Feb. 21, 2006, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in <i>MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.</i>, 126 S. Ct. 1329 (2006), to consider this precise question.

Features

Plaintiffs bringing patent infringement cases should ensure that they have made an adequate pre-filing inquiry as to the viability of their claims before initiating litigation. Without such an investigation, plaintiffs and their attorneys risk sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the sanctions context, Rule 408 of the Federal Rules of Evidence does not protect settlement communications from admissibility.