The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that false light invasion of privacy is not a valid cause of action in Florida, opting instead for a new claim titled "defamation by implication."
As obvious as this distaste for lawsuits may be to anyone who has ever been deposed, it nonetheless is often critical for businesses, and particularly technology firms, not only to be prepared to go (metaphorically) to war in the battlefield of the courtroom, but to actually take that step.
The TTAB has opined on the meaning of a bona fide intent to use a trademark in connection with a Section 1b intent to use trademark application. None of these opinions, however, has delineated a clear bright-line test defining bona fide intent to use. In April 2009, the TTAB, ruling in <i>Honda Motor Co., Ltd. v. Friedrich Winkelmann,</i> established the meaning in the context of a trademark application based on foreign registration rights under Section 44, rather than on use in interstate U.S. commerce.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the sale of products lacking a unique serial number applied by a brand owner for anticounterfeiting and quality control purposes constitutes trademark infringement under federal law. This is so even if the removal of the code does not cause physical damage to an otherwise genuine product and consumers are not aware that the code has been removed.
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.
