Andrew M. Levine, Bruce E. Yannett, Steven S. Michaels
&
Scott N. Auby
When may foreign nationals residing continuously outside the United States be prosecuted on civil FCPA charges by the SEC? Conclusion of last month's article.
The California Supreme Court has accepted "transformative use" as a First Amendment defense to a right-of-publicity claim for more than a decade. The issue recently came up before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the class action suit by former college athletes who claim Electronic Arts (EA) violated their rights of publicity with the NCAA Football video game.
The Cameo Clips column in the August 2013 issue of Entertainment Law & Finance incorrectly reported the name of the deciding court in Faulkner Literary…
In paired opinions rendered the same day by the same judge, the Ninth Circuit reached seemingly directly contrary conclusions in virtually identical cases concerning the balancing of intellectual property rights and First Amendment interests.
The Forbidding Advertisement Through Child Exploitation Act (FACE Act) of 2013 was introduced in Congress on July 10, 2013 by U.S. Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-N) to help protect the personal privacy of children and teens.
There have been a spate of reports the last few months on alternative fee agreements, or AFAs as they are also known. Subsequently these have stirred a tremendous amount of conversation in the industry. Some of the conversation is helpful, some of it is constructively critical, and some of it is quite simply confusing.
Winning or losing your client's case often rests on your ability to prove facts that support your client's position. Subject-matter expert witnesses play a prominent role in interpreting the facts available to them and helping the trier of fact reach a conclusion on the meaning of such information. Forensic and e-discovery experts are no different than any other experts in that their opinions can only be as solid as the information they can find and analyze.
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.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.
