Proponents of mandatory arbitration clauses were given a victory in November when the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in which the Oklahoma court had ruled that an employment non-compete agreement could be reviewed by a state court, despite an arbitration requirement in an employment contract.
Advertisers and marketers should watch <i>The Estate of Buckminster Fuller v. Maxfield & Oberton Holdings, LLC</i> closely to see what limits may exist on their use of a name that has ties to a celebrity as well as a separate object.
A recurring issue in intellectual property law is the possibility of establishing rights in subject matter from the public domain and drawing the boundaries between what is public and private. The issue arose in one guise in <i>Golan v. Holder</i>, 132 S.Ct. 873 (2012), which upheld the constitutionality of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (or, informally, Copyright Restoration Act), granting U.S. copyright protection to certain works that had passed into the public domain in the United States, but which were still protected in their country of origin.
Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, several new mechanisms allow third parties to challenge patent applications and patents. Among these is a new preissuance submission procedure by which members of the general public may submit prior art believed to be relevant to a pending patent application.
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.
