LJN Newsletters

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.

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 MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 126 S. Ct. 1329 (2006), to consider this precise question.

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.

Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.

A roundup of the latest news.