Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A new Federal Circuit case has fundamentally changed the standards for declaratory judgment actions, making it much easier for companies concerned with a patent to file a suit establishing that they do not infringe the patent or that the patent is invalid. The case will have profound effects on the ways patent holders communicate with would-be licensees.
Background
In a common scenario, a company learns about a patent and is concerned that the patent holder may sue for infringement. Perhaps the patent holder has sent a letter informing the company about the patent and suggesting a possible license; or maybe the company learned about the patent on its own. In any event, the company wants to be proactive and bring a suit to establish that it does not infringe or that the patent is invalid, and it wants to bring the case in a forum considered favorable to those who challenge a patent.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
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?