Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
Doctors feel hurried these days, and they resent it. They believe that the demands of their days have caused them to spend less time with patients. They also believe that their patients resent it. Let's look at what has really happened to the office visit -- and then let's see if better patient satisfaction levels correlate with fewer lawsuits.
Features
Natick, MA-based Boston Scientific Corp. has agreed to pay $74 million to the United States to resolve an ongoing investigation concerning its 1998 distribution and subsequent recall of one of its coronary stent delivery systems. In agreeing to the settlement, the company did not admit to any wrongdoing.
Features
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</i></b>: The <i>McDowell</i> case discussed in the first part of this article presented the question of "whether it is so if an expert says it is so." <i>See Viterbo v. Dow Chem. Co.</i>, 826 F.2d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). <i>Daubert</i> and its progeny answered in the negative and established that an expert may not present a bare causation conclusion to the jury when that expert has no scientific basis for that conclusion or for any of the predicate inferences leading up to it. The <i>McDowell</i> claim failed because a physician's personal clinical experience, sometimes called anecdotal experience, is simply not a proper scientific basis for causation opinion testimony.
Features
1. Understand that building a client base is a key factor in determining your success as an attorney. The hard fact is (although it was not taught us in…
