Poponents of marriage equality are seeking to overturn their states' bans on same-sex marriage on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in <I>Windsor.</I>
How do the radical changes to health care law in the United States affect its citizens who are currently going through the divorce process or are recently divorced?
Matrimonial attorneys are often confronted with a listed equity asset that, at least according to the client, "isn't worth anything." So how do we approach this dilemma?
Digital is the new normal. But digital content affords many distinct advantages over its analogue counterpart, and that's if such counterparts even exist.
The latest fad phrase in the legal trade press is "big data" and, as with many fad phrases, it means many things to many people and is a complete mystery to others.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
The doctrine of equivalents is a rule of equity adopted more than 150 years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prosecution history estoppel is a rule of equity that controls access to the doctrine. In May 2002, the Court was called upon to revisit the doctrine and the estoppel rule in <i>Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. Ltd.</i> Ultimately the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and expanded the estoppel rule, but not without inciting heated debate over the Court's rationale — especially since it included a new and controversial foreseeability test in its analysis for estoppel.
