Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The employer mandate under the ACA, which requires large employers to provide health insurance for their full-time employees or pay a penalty, is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2015. Regulations released by the IRS set forth the final rules that an employer must use to determine whether it is a large employer subject to the mandate. With just over six months to go, the time is ripe for employers to determine whether they will be considered large employers and if so, to determine appropriate next steps.
Features
Upon issuance, can a later-issued (but earlier-expiring) patent qualify as a double patenting reference against an already issued (but later-expiring) commonly owned patent of the same inventor? In Gilead Sciences, the Federal Circuit held that it could.
Columns & Departments
Inconsistent Testimony Made Plaintiff Not Typical off Proposed Class <br>Franchisor Sanctioned For Failing to Prepare Its Representative for Corporate Deposition<br>Federal Court Enforces Franchisee Post-Termination Obligations
Features
Bona fide intent was given new meaning by the TTAB. <i>Lincoln National Corporation v. Anderson,</i> exemplifies an apparent trend of the TTAB requiring greater proof of an applicant's "intent" as a jurisdictional prerequisite for filing an application or face a finding that the application is void <i>ab initio.</i> This is the paradigm of the "ticking time bomb" trademark nightmare with a very long fuse.
Features
Although the "traveling employee" exception to the "going and coming rule" is strictly limited to workers' compensation cases, it has been widely applied to many cases that the exception has evolved into its own rule.
Features
In a recent decision by the Fifth Circuit, the court held that a lender's pre-bankruptcy acceleration of a promissory note arising from a borrower's nonpayment default did not trigger provision for a prepayment premium in the absence of an actual loan prepayment.
Features
The recent decision in <I>Sykes v. Sykes</I> sent shock waves reverberating throughout the New York matrimonial bar for its direction that during the pendency of a divorce litigation, the less monied spouse may be required to use a portion of her share of the marital estate to pay her legal fees, rather than continue to have such fees paid by the wealthier spouse.
The battles to land new clients and matters are fierce and the consequences of losing are far more damaging than ever. Nevertheless, there are times when the smart play is to decline, no matter how alluring the likely fees are.
