Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When patent issues arise, clients often need both trial counsel and opinions of counsel. Opinions are primarily needed for: 1) advice on how to avoid infringement; 2) assessment of liability risks and potential outcomes of infringement lawsuits; and 3) protection against a finding that any infringement was willful. Trial counsel are needed when a patent infringement suit is threatened, imminent, or instituted.
This article discusses the advantages of employing the same attorney or law firm as both opinion counsel and trial counsel. It explains why disqualification of counsel is not as much of a concern as some commentators emphasize. Finally, it analyzes the issues surrounding attorney-client privilege and work-product protection and concludes that the dangers are minimal with experienced trial counsel.
Advantages of Employing Opinion Counsel as Trial Counsel
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?