For a variety of reasons, manufacturers owning patent rights may find it beneficial to assign their patents to a patent-holding company set up as a wholly owned subsidiary of the manufacturer. Using a holding company to manage a patent portfolio may permit the holding company to take advantage of favorable state tax treatment of licensing revenues. Through the use of a royalty-paying grant-back license to the manufacturer, placing patents in a holding company may help produce a tax deduction for the manufacturer. Administrative conveniences of having one corporate entity focus on maintaining and maximizing the return on patent rights may also justify transferring a manufacturer's patents to a holding company. Some also believe that having a holding company, rather than the manufacturer, enforce patent rights in litigation can make the litigation process easier on the manufacturer.
- April 01, 2005Robert A. Matthews, Jr.
Franchise attorneys say that the new federal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA") will be beneficial to franchisors, but they do not predict that the new law means the end of class action litigation between franchisors and franchisees, nor by consumers or employees against franchise systems. In fact, some attorneys suggest that CAFA might result in more litigation, as plaintiffs file lawsuits in individual states rather than seeking national class action status through a case brought before a state court.
April 01, 2005Kevin AdlerCourts in California have issued contradictory rulings in the past 2 months about whether a reform of the state's Unfair Competition Act, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. (the "UCA") is retroactive. Section 17200 was changed when California voters passed Proposition 64 in the Nov. 2004 election. Proposition 64 amends the UCA to delete the broad standing rules and to add a requirement that suit may be brought by a private plaintiff (as opposed to a suit brought by a County Attorney or Attorney General) only if the plaintiff has suffered "injury in fact" and has lost money or property as a result of the unfair competition. These reforms will likely reduce the incidence of Section 17200 litigation — a development that is strongly supported by businesses across the state.
April 01, 2005Jeffrey L. FillerupHighlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.
April 01, 2005Kathryn ShipeHighlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
April 01, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The authors conclude their analysis of 10 highly significant decisions in the past decade that affected the franchising industry.
April 01, 2005Jeffery S. Haff and Andrew Scott2005 ELA Legal Forum: May 15-17, 2005, Loews Miami Beach Hotel, Miami Beach, FL. Sponsor: Equipment Leasing Association of America, 1300 N. 17th Street,…
April 01, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |Highlights of the latest equipment leasing news from around the country.
April 01, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |As reported last month by Bill Bosco, the Financial Accounting Standards Board planned to, and did in fact, meet on March 2 to finalize its decisions on the issue of recalculating a leveraged lease in the event of changes in timing of tax benefits. The Board affirmed its tentative conclusions that a change in timing of the realization of tax benefits should require a recalculation of the leveraged lease and a re-evaluation of the classification of the leveraged lease.
April 01, 2005ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |The author continues her analysis of the elements of the senior-junior-borrower relationship that should be addressed with specificity in an intercreditor agreement.
April 01, 2005Erica M. Ryland