LJN Newsletters

When 2020, and its accompanying pandemic, ushered in a resurgence in legal digital marketing and social media use, it was expected given the circumstances. But not all firms are managing that content effectively.

When and how can you display someone else's visual content on your website without running afoul of copyright law? When and how can someone else display your visual content? A recent ruling out of the Southern District of New York may upend the current paradigm.

Although several direct appeals for PTAB review or rehearing were made by parties who had received adverse outcomes at PTAB hearings after the Arthrex decision, on November 3, the first rehearing was granted by the PTO acting director.

In two recent decisions, the Federal Circuit and a Delaware district court took account of the underlying economic conditions that permit and prevent awards of lost profits, and looked at the implications of those conditions on otherwise unrelated areas of law.

District Court: Exceptionality Found and Attorney Fees Awarded When Patent Owner Pursued Litigation With a Fraudulently Obtained Patent

How does "eye of the beholder" apply to law clients for determining whether an attorney is representing more than one party to a negotiation? And how would attorney/client privilege work in such a situation? These issues have been raised in litigation involving sponsorship agreements for the Johnny Cash Museum in Nashville.

When and how can someone else's visual content be displayed on a website without the website operator running afoul of copyright law? When and how can someone else display the website operator's visual content? A recent ruling on a popular practice at the center of these issues for entertainment and media companies may upend the current paradigm.

A successful Atlanta-based hip-hop and R&B label beat back the efforts of a Los Angeles consulting firm to lay claim to hundreds of thousands of dollars and a large chunk of the company itself, when a jury declared that the record company owed the consultants less than $3,500.