IP News
April 30, 2008
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
What Is Reasonable?
April 30, 2008
Several recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court have arguably tipped the scales toward alleged infringers involved in a patent battle.
TiVo v. EchoStar: Federal Circuit Does the Time Warp
April 30, 2008
In <i>TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc'ns Corp.</i>, the Federal Circuit affirmed TiVo's $74 million judgment against EchoStar and reinstated TiVo's permanent injunction. If the parties could go back in time having the benefit of the Federal Circuit's decision, the patent-in-suit might be drafted differently and the claim construction arguments might be more persuasive. This article explores some of the lessons from the Federal Circuit's decision.
Movers & Shakers
April 30, 2008
News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising arena.
News Briefs
April 30, 2008
Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.
Court Watch
April 30, 2008
Typically, the Court Watch column is dedicated to the presentation of recent notable judicial decisions in, as much as possible, a non-biased way. This month, I am going to break with that tradition, and while briefly reviewing several recent cases relating to arbitration in the franchising context, I will raise for consideration at the same time the question of the desirability of using arbitration as the preferred means of dispute resolution.
NJ Finds Right to Privacy in Users' ISP Records
April 30, 2008
People surfing the Internet on their own computers have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a grand jury subpoena is needed for law enforcement to obtain identifying information, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled late last month in a case of first impression.
Where the Law Stands On Virtual Property
April 30, 2008
The filing of a complaint by a Pennsylvania lawyer against the operators of an online virtual world, and last year's decision by a Pennsylvania federal district court in that case, <i>Bragg v. Linden Research Inc.</i>, has generated a great deal of interest in the media and among lawyers, as well as in the virtual world community. The attention has gone well beyond that which the decision would have garnered if it had not involved a virtual world and virtual property, given that it simply found an arbitration clause in a terms-of-service agreement to be unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. It is clear, however, that the case reflects the growth of real-life litigation over virtual-world property. Undoubtedly, as participation in virtual worlds increases, real-life lawsuits will be growing in number, too.
