Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
What employees do on their own time is their own business, right? Except when you think it may adversely impact your business. It's one thing for an employee to harbor extreme political views. It's another thing to blog them to the world. An employee's private sex life is, well, private. But what if an employee blogs his or her sexual fantasies to the world? Does an employer have the right to take action against an employee for off-duty blogging it finds offensive or otherwise problematic?
National rulings you need to know.
It seems that we read news stories almost daily about estranged husbands and boyfriends hunting down women at work, and ultimately killing these women before committing suicide. The "spillover" of domestic violence into the workplace is a widespread phenomenon and one that employers must acknowledge and deal with. It is not simply a private family issue. It cannot be minimized or ignored. The workplace is an easy place to find someone, which enables estranged partners to harass, stalk and sometimes kill their victims at work.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
On June 13, 2005, the Supreme Court in <i>Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd.</i>, 545 U.S. ___, 2005 WL 1383624 (2005) ruled that the safe-harbor infringement exemption of 35 U.S.C. '271(e)(1) may apply to non-clinical research on a patented compound as long as there is a reasonable basis to believe that the compound tested could itself be the subject of an FDA submission or that experiments with the compound will produce the kinds of information relevant to an Investigational New Drug Application ("IND") or a New Drug Application ("NDA"); the exemption may apply even though the patented compound never itself becomes the subject of an FDA submission or the experimental results arising from its use never reported in a submission. The decision reversed the holding of the Federal Circuit (331 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) that the exemption applies only to research used to obtain information that is submitted to the FDA as part of an application for regulatory approval. The Court expressly refused, however, to consider whether '271(e)(1) might exempt "research tools" from infringement liability. Although the Court interpreted the reach of the '271(e)(1) exemption broadly, the issue of whether use of patented research tools falls within it remains unresolved.
Features
In <i>MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.</i>, No. 04-480 (June 27, 2005), the Supreme Court decided that the defendants could be held liable for copyright infringement perpetrated by the users of their respective software. Rather than clarifying the "significant noninfringing use" standard from <i>Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.</i>, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), to determine whether the defendants could be held liable for distributing a product with knowledge that it could be used to infringe, the Court utilized an alternative approach of finding liability. Turning to common law precedent and patent law, the unanimous Court held that liability may be based on purposeful, culpable expression under an inducement theory of secondary infringement. While some of the potential implications of this decision can be predicted, the full effect will not likely be clear for some time.
Features
In recent years, innovative approaches toward brand creation and marketing have given rise to a new family of trademarks, referred to as nontraditional marks, which include, among others, color, motion and non-visual marks. Trademark laws in both the United States and Europe are being clarified to accommodate these new marks. Many such provisions are harmonious across both regions, but there are some procedural and substantive differences that should be considered before a company invests its time and resources into the creation of an international nontraditional brand. Further, registration of most nontraditional marks often requires a showing that the mark acquired distinctiveness through extensive use, which can be a heavy burden to meet under the law of both jurisdictions.
Features
Eli Lilly and Company announced on June 9 that it had agreed in principle to a settlement with most of the plaintiffs involved in the Zyprexa liability litigation. Eli Lilly, an Indiana company, expects to take a pretax charge of at lease $700 million in the second quarter of 2005 to cover the settlement costs.
