The decision in <i>Winshall v. Viacom International Inc.</i> certainly is of comfort to dealmakers and practitioners who are responsible for negotiating and documenting M&A transactions. Here's why.
The consequences for the NLRB of <i>Noel Canning v. NLRB</i>are so potentially catastrophic that the Board must of necessity must seek certiorari from the Supreme Court.
Large-scale, consumer 3-D printing is fast approaching, and with it will come a host of complex and uncertain legal issues for businesses as they try to protect their proprietary goods.
A recent federal court decision from Wisconsin suggests that expansive and formal franchise agreements are a necessary evil. A look at <i>Everett v. Paul Davis Restoration.</i>
The ability of a developer to ultimately sell an outparcel for its maximum value often is dependent to a large degree on the legal status of the outparcel ...
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.
