Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that will have a significant impact on the uniformity of patent law. As a result of Holmes v. Vornado, 535 U.S. 826, 122 S. Ct. 1889, 62 USPQ2d 1801 (2002), many cases involving patent counterclaims will be directed away from the Federal Circuit and into the regional circuit courts of appeals. Although this decision clarifies the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit, it does so at the expense of consistency in patent law.
The Case
The plaintiff, Holmes, filed an action against Vornado seeking, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that it did not infringe Vornado's trade dress. Holmes did not raise patent claims in the complaint. Vornado asserted a compulsory counterclaim alleging patent infringement. The district court ruled in Holmes' favor on the trade dress claim and stayed the proceedings relating to Vornado's counterclaim. Vornado appealed to the decision to the Federal Circuit, whereupon Holmes challenged the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction. After losing the challenge, Holmes appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
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 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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?