The resolution of a class action almost always involves an award of attorneys' fees to plaintiffs' counsel, as part of the overall settlement or based on a separate hearng. But insurance companies often resist paying these awards. They contend that the awards constitute penalties or do not constitute insured compensatory damages. They also sometimes contend that the awards are not covered because they are derivative of uncovered claims.
This article nicely complements last month's A&FP special edition on "Putting Business Intelligence to Work." Not only does Warren Knowles introduce another interesting software product, but he also explains clearly how the firm's BI software has come to have multiple points of contact with the firm's other application software systems.
The mandatory retirement and similar policies that firms have wielded to effect such transitions are now under threat. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission presented a clear legal challenge earlier this year when it sued Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, alleging age discrimination in the firm's dismissal and demotion of older partners. But an even greater challenge to firm retirement policies may be posed by the growing number of older partners who feel they have remained highly productive and insist on holding onto privileged positions, either by negotiating special arrangements or by decamping to other firms.
On June 27, 2005, the Second Circuit overturned a lower court's determination that an Internet advertising company's delivery of targeted, contextually relevant pop-up ads constituted trademark infringement. The plaintiff, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. ("1-800"), sued WhenU.com ("WhenU") for trademark infringement as well as multiple other federal copyright, state infringement, and common law claims. The Second Circuit limited its review of the case to the plaintiff's Lanham Act claim, remanding the rest of 1-800's claims back to the district court.
To rely on the dictionary or not to rely on the dictionary, and to what extent, that is the question. A question which after frenzied anticipation by the patent bar, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in its July 12, 2005 landmark decision of Phillips v. AWH Corp., No. 03-1269, -1286, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13954 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2005), has answered: While dictionaries may be useful to assist in the understanding of a commonly understood meaning of a claim term, the proper starting point is the patent specification and corresponding prosecution history.
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
In a little-noticed and as yet un-cited alternative holding last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit undermined a previously unbroken line of cases holding that electronic copies of digital works are "fixed" within the meaning of the Copyright Act if they exist in the random access memory ("RAM") of a computer. CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
A Manhattan federal district court declined award attorney fees to defendant booking agents and concert promoters who prevailed in a suit by black concert promoters alleging race discrimination in concert bookings. Rowe Entertainment Inc. v. The William Morris Agency Inc., 98 Civ. 8272 (RPP).
Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
