Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In August 2005, the New York Bar Association authorized the formation of a subcommittee of the Business Law section to review, analyze, and possibly revise or rewrite the New York Franchise Act of 1980 to better reflect the current franchising landscape. The subcommittee has held several meetings and is soliciting input from all interested parties. In this interview, Thomas M. Pitegoff (White Plains, NY) discusses the initial goals of the subcommittee, its progress to date, and its continued interest in receiving comments from franchisors, franchisees, and their representatives, and others who may be affected by the New York franchise law.
This is the first of a two-part article. This installment discusses the implications of different foreign filing strategies for establishing a priority date under 35 U.S.C. §102(e). Next month's installment will discuss recommendations for foreign applicants filing in the United States and the situation under the European Patent Convention.
Features
The reach of U.S. influence on the world is undeniable, and the Federal Circuit in the past few months has done nothing to shrink from that expansion.
Features
Until recently, U.S. software companies comfortably operated under the assumption that selling software that was copied from a "golden master" CD outside of the United States, and which was sold only to customers outside of the United States, did not infringe U.S. patents. Recent developments in the law have destroyed that comfort and made clear that infringement liability may very well lie for exactly those types of foreign sales.
Highlights of the latest product liability cases from around the country.
If you're looking for articles pertaining to product liability litigation, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice ("ICJ") has a Web site that lists and summarizes a variety of articles that are available for purchase or for free. Go to <i>www.rand.org/icj/pubs</i> and click on "Product Liability."
Until 1997, when the Supreme Court decided <i>General Electric v. Joiner</i>, 522 U.S. 136, (1997), I had never heard of the term <i>ipse dixit</i>. Now, almost every month I read a decision in which that phrase appears. <i>Ipse</i>, in Latin, is "he himself"; <i>dixit</i>, "to say." Its dictionary meaning is "an unsupported assertion, usually by a person of standing."
Features
This month's installment discusses the final three habits of highly effective risk management programs.
Among the myriad acquisitions, mergers, assets sales and other transactions that are consummated every day by companies engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing or selling products, there is hardly a transaction imaginable that does not somehow implicate a precedent corporate entity. A corporation that "succeeds" to another company's operations may be deemed responsible for the latter's liabilities, including claims with respect to products manufactured, sold or distributed before the acquisition. The resulting liability, if visited upon a successor, may subject it to exposure far beyond anything ever contemplated at the time of the transaction ' and in amounts that far exceed the value of the deal or the worth of the entire company.
When a patient files a lawsuit against a drug or medical device company, it is typically based on product liability allegations that the pharmaceutical product caused physical injury. In recent years, however, patients are asserting violations of state consumer fraud or unfair trade practices acts in addition to product liability claims. The benefit of doing so is clear. These claims, if successful, allow enhanced recovery of treble damages, attorneys' fees, court costs and fees.
