Bit Parts
January 28, 2005
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Fifth Circuit Rules in Battle Over Rap Phrase
January 28, 2005
As often happens in the hip-hop world, two rappers became embroiled in a dispute over who owned the rights to a song that utilized a popular phrase. And it took the musical ear of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to settle the matter.
<b>Counsel Concerns</b>Music Publisher's Defense Counsel To Stay in Case
January 28, 2005
The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four acknowledged that an entire firm can be disqualified when one of its attorneys formerly represented and may possess confidential information harmful to a former client who is now an adverse party in litigation. But the court of appeal emphasized that this wasn't so if "there was no opportunity for confidential information to be divulged."
Cameo Clips
January 28, 2005
Recent cases in entertainment law.
Courthouse Steps
January 28, 2005
Recently filed cases in entertainment law, straight from the steps of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Clause & Effect
January 28, 2005
TV Program Hosts/Sales And Assignment Clauses <br>Film Option Agreements/Profit Participation Rights
Arbitration Update
January 28, 2005
Recent rulings affecting arbitration provisions and hearings in the entertainment industry.
Raising the Stakes in Copyright Litigation: The Availability of Punitive Damages
January 28, 2005
Many practitioners likely assume that the sole monetary remedies under the Copyright Act are those specified in Sec, 504 of the statute, namely the copyright owner's provable losses and/or the infringer's profits, or, alternatively, statutory damages (which, by statutory formula, include possible stepped-up awards in cases of willful infringement). It was thus with some significance, and perhaps surprise, that in <i>Blanch v. Koons</i>, a slender decision of only seven paragraphs, a federal district judge in New York rendered a decision that granted a motion to amend the complaint in a copyright case to allow the plaintiff to seek punitive damages (not simply enhanced statutory damages).
Myths About Avoiding Prosecution History Estoppel
January 28, 2005
In the recent Federal Circuit case <i>Honeywell, Int'l. Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp.</i>, 370 F.3d 1131 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc), the court held that a presumption of prosecution history estoppel arises when a patent applicant cancels an independent claim and rewrites its first dependent claim in independent form. Since then, patent attorneys and industry watchdogs have repeatedly misinterpreted the cause of this estoppel. Worse, many have advocated the dangerous strategy of initially writing dependent claims in independent form as a means of avoiding the estoppel. Such a strategy is useless in avoiding estoppel and highly counterproductive. Patent prosecutors should leave dependent claims in dependent form and, instead, avoid estoppel by using the strategies suggested below.
