In this column, we bring the views and opinions from the client's perspective into focus on issues involving pricing, service, marketing, strategy, differentiation and more. This month, we reached out to Michael Chartock, who has a multi-dimensional lens on these issues.
Electronic discovery experts continue to put an emphasis on recognizing e-discovery as part of a complete information governance (IG) solution. Although this focus may be novel for e-discovery specialists, the management of corporate information at an enterprise level is far from new. Yet, despite its ubiquity, many professionals who have a solid grounding in electronic discovery struggle to understand how it falls into the broader world of information governance.
As is often the case in product liability lawsuits, the recent bellwether trial in the Risperdal litigation involved several disputes about the admissibility of expert testimony. However, one such dispute is notable because the "expert" testimony in question was actually from a fact witness.
The registry that owns the controversial domain name ".sucks" has put the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on notice that its criticisms and actions against the company could lead to legal action.
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the standard for an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. '285 in Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc., holding that the record in the district court did not support a denial of attorney fees.
An in-depth discussion of Safe-Harbored contracts and protected entities.
Insurance fraud is committed not only by people who set fire to their homes for the insurance money or who lie about "missing" property that was in their "stolen" cars. Doctors and lawyers also commit insurance fraud. They risk the usual penalties, including potential jail time, as well as the loss of their ability to practice their profession.
The problems of poor-quality or unnecessary care were caused, in part, by the fee-for-service payment system that was in effect for generations. The fee-for-service model unfortunately offered the wrong incentives to dishonest or poor-quality providers to maximize revenue by maximizing services regardless of the quality or the medical necessity of the services provided.
The Federal Circuit is set to hear argument en banc in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., a case involving two critical aspects of patent exhaustion.
What might ordinarily be run-of-the-mill puffery can be transmogrified into large scale liability for a company where the company representative knows what he or she says is not reasonably supportable. A look at some recent cases.
