Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Faced with rising litigation costs and unpredictable juries, it is understandable that many product liability litigants ' on both sides of the courtroom ' eventually think about settlement in lieu of trial. In cases involving catastrophic injury, however, staggering medical expense liens often control the feasibility of reaching an acceptable agreement. Some lawyers have long dreaded settlement negotiations when Medicare is the major lien holder, because Medicare can be the proverbial 800-pound gorilla at the table. Unfortunately, with the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MPDIMA) the gorilla has only gotten bigger. To have any chance at taming the Medicare beast, lawyers on both sides need to understand the reach of a Medicare lien, as well as potential avenues for reducing or eliminating Medicare's interest in the settlement proceeds.
For a few days recently, I 'researched' the adult-entertainment industry for this article. I became curious as to just how big the industry was, what kind of money was being made and what companies owned, operated, managed and provided adult entertainment. In fact, there are multiple segments and sectors within the industry, with companies involved in movies, books and magazines, Web sites and software, nightclubs, adult-cable networks, pay-per-view services, telephone and online services, retail stores and catalogs.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld a jury determination in favor of a producer plaintiff on the meaning of 'commencement of recording' in a production-release agreement.
Features
Patents, by their very nature, are territorial, granting a right to exclude in the country that issues them. Thus, a patentee seeking to enforce its U.S. Patent must do so in a federal district court or, if goods are being imported into the country, at the International Trade Commission ('ITC').
Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey might have lent some serious star power to subscription-based satellite-radio networks XM and Sirius, but that doesn't mean the fledgling medium is ready for prime time. This year, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. have to renegotiate their royalty agreements with record labels. Not only is the music industry intent on raising the licensing fees, it wants to stop the introduction of new satellite radio receivers that work more like an iPod than a radio.
After almost 15 years of admittedly dodging the issue, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in <i>Digital Control Incorporated v. Charles Machine Works</i>, ___ F.3d ___, 2006 WL 288075 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 8, 2006), finally determined that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Rule 56, as amended in 1992, does not supplement or replace existing case law in determining the threshold of materiality. The court stated that '[a]lthough we have affirmed findings of materiality based upon the new Rule 56, we have declined to address whether the Rule 56 standard replaced the old 'reasonable examiner' standard.' <i>Id.</i> at *4. Instead, the court found the Rule 56 standard merely 'provides an additional test of materiality' to the existing 'but for,' 'but it may have,' and 'reasonable examiner' tests.
Features
A well-intentioned journalist, who is not a physician, recently wrote an article in <i>The New York Times</i> asking why medical mistakes occur. There, the author advanced a theory that if doctors were better paid, there would be higher quality of care, and fewer misdiagnoses. This theory assumes that doctors are mainly motivated by money, which, in this author's opinion, is not the primary impetus for a doctor, or any other medical practitioner, to do the job right. The law defines medical negligence simply: the failure to do what a reasonably prudent practitioner would do in the same or similar circumstances. Medical negligence, in a legal sense, does not differ from other forms of negligence: When a person ' doctor or layman ' departs from the accepted standard of care, that is negligent conduct. Numerically, this vagary translates to mean that a practitioner has not deviated from the applicable standard of care if he or she does 'that which 51% of practitioners would do.'
Features
The tort of induced patent infringement codified in 35 U.S.C. '271(b) is a powerful tool that patent owners can use when it is not feasible or practical to sue a direct infringer. In order to prove this claim, a patent owner must establish that 1) its claim is directly infringed by a third party, 2) that the defendant induced that third party to infringe, and 3) that the defendant possessed intent to encourage that party to infringe.
Features
On Jan. 17, the U.S Supreme Court announced its decision in <i>Gonzalez v. Oregon</i>, upholding Oregon's state law on so-called 'physician-assisted suicide.' The Supreme Court decision rejected an effort by the Justice Department to punish physicians who assist terminally ill patients with prescriptions of lethal doses of controlled medications pursuant to the Oregon Death With Dignity Act (ODWDA). The case had been widely followed as it proceeded through the federal court system, and is now expected to invite similar legislation as other states consider enacting assisted-death laws. In this article, we consider the state and federal legislation that was placed at loggerheads by an administrative directive of the Attorney General of the United States; the decisions of the lower federal courts presented with the issue; and the ultimate disposition of the matter by the Supreme Court.
Features
Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
