Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to keep employers on their toes by dealing with cases involving employment issues this term. During the first week of December, the Court issued its decision in <i>Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez</i>, No. 02-749, ___ S. Ct. ___ (2003), an ADA case involving the legality of an employer policy prohibiting the rehire of individuals fired for violating the employer's drug use policy. Also, the Court agreed to consider two other employment cases. First, in <i>Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders</i>, the Court will decide whether constructive discharge is a "tangible employment action" for purposes of sexual harassment claims. Second, in <i>Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Heinz</i>, the Court will tackle an issue involving ERISA's anti-cutback rule for pension benefits.
Features
The tragic events of 9/11 brought to the forefront a form of insurance that has great importance for the business community, but heretofore has received relatively little attention from the insurance bar — business interruption insurance. The reason is simple: Notwithstanding the high-stakes litigation over the World Trade Center's insurance claims and other claims arising out of 9/11, business interruption claims have been the subject of infrequent litigation when compared with claims involving general liability, products liability, construction, and directors' and officers' coverage.
Features
In recent years, an increasing number of companies have sought to resolve current and future liability for long-tail exposures, such as asbestos or silica, by filing prepackaged bankruptcy cases. These bankruptcy filings raise numerous insurance-related issues.
Features
Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.
For emerging technology companies, a product that produces revenues is the lifeblood and should be protected at all costs. But when it comes to patent litigation, all but the largest technology companies should avoid the mind-set that they are suing to a conclusion, as either plaintiff or defendant. The objective is to make a reasonable intellectual property deal, sooner rather than later, and focus on competition in the marketplace — not the courtroom.
A lawsuit filed April 11 in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles has grabbed the attention of the life sciences community. The key parties are three high-profile biotech developers: MedImmune, Genentech and Celltech.
Features
Cheap foreign labor has long been a frightening specter for some American industries. But these days, garment makers and steelworkers are not the only ones competing with lower-paid counterparts abroad. Spurred by the slow economy, many in-house legal departments are cutting costs by relying less on U.S. outside counsel and more on lawyers in India, New Zealand, South Korea, and other countries where professional salaries are lower.
There is little doubt that protecting one's intellectual property is important for businesses both large and small. Statistically, 60% of the market valuation of the average industrial corporation is based on its intellectual property and that figure rises to 80% for high-tech companies. Patents make up a large slice of the intellectual property pie in any technology-driven company. Filing a patent, however, is not the end of protecting your technology. Indeed, it is just the beginning. A key ingredient to the success of any technology-based company lies in effectively managing its patent portfolio. One important and often overlooked aspect of managing your patent portfolio is patent tracking.
Features
Open Innovation" by Henry Chesbrough. Harvard Business School Press (2003). 225 pp.In "Open Innovation," Henry Chesbrough proposes that a fundamental change is taking place in the business of innovation — a traditional closed innovation model is being supplanted by an emerging open innovation one. The closed innovation archetype was the isolated corporate research center that sought to single-handedly develop, commercialize, and dominate an emerging technology. Open innovation is heralded by companies that combine their internal capabilities with an awareness of the innovation marketplace and a willingness to license, acquire, and collaborate to maximize the speed and impact of innovation. The author opines that companies that continue to rely on closed innovation cannot compete against the new breed of open innovators.
Depending on the circumstances and the law, parties on either side of an entertainment suit may ask a court for an award of attorney fees. Following are court rulings from recent months that deal with this and related concerns. In this and future issues, <i>Entertainment Law & Finance</i> will report on such relevant rulings in Attorney-Fee Updates.