Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
During recent years, personal and advertising injury coverage has been the subject of many court decisions. Often those decisions have involved questions of coverage for copyright infringement under the 'advertising injury' prong of the coverage. However, there has been a wide range of cases involving issues under the 'personal injury' prong of the coverage. In many of these cases, courts have focused on the current wording of the language, without reference to the historical background of the personal injury provisions. That background demonstrates the breadth of the coverage.
After a liability insurance company denies coverage for a lawsuit filed against its policyholder, the policyholder is left to manage the defense and settlement of the lawsuit. Sometimes, the policyholder is forced to, or elects to, have another person or entity pay for the defense fees, settlement, or judgment. This leads to the inevitable question of whether the policyholder can recover from its liability insurer sums paid for defense fees, settlement, or judgment if, after the insurance company has wrongfully denied coverage, the policyholder's defense bills, settlement, or a judgment are paid for by a non-insured person or entity. While it should not matter who pays once a liability insurer has breached its contract, some courts have denied policyholders recoveries when a non-insured third-party steps in for the breaching liability insurer and pays the policyholder's defense fees, a settlement, or the judgment.
