Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part Two of a Two-Part Series
In Part One of this article, we examined the risks to intellectual property (IP) value that would most preoccupy IP professionals, including: third-party risks for infringement liability, first-party risks to IP assets, and Directors & Officers (D&O) risks arising out of relevant valuation and disclosure. However, as IP specifically accounts for a higher ratio of market capitalization and shareholder value for publicly traded corporations, strategic choices relating to IP impact the firm's financial fortunes in more subtle ways, commensurate with that increased value. To cite one salient example: For IP-rich companies, tax planning is increasingly intertwined with Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) strategy.
One threshold challenge for IP-rich companies is that corporate tax professionals and IP experts do not usually speak the same professional language. This is unsurprising ' tax professionals are not usually also IP experts, making it difficult for them to understand and take advantage of complex IP-related strategies. The practical solution is to ensure that the right IP experts and tax professionals communicate with each other meaningfully and regularly. Risk management can propose and facilitate such a solution.
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?