Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Joint Defense Agreement Considerations in NPE Patent Litigation
Accused infringers in patent litigation, especially against non-practicing entities (NPEs), often form joint defense groups to defend against common claims brought in one or more actions. A written agreement of the joint defense group can make plain the respective rights and obligations of each group member and evidence to the court a requisite alignment of common interest underpinning the group. Because a joint defense agreement provides a foundation for the relational dynamic among group members, the opportunity to optimize its provisions for your client and to define a framework for group interaction should be embraced. The following is a selection of relevant considerations to support productive group interaction through appropriate provision in the joint defense agreement.
Confidentiality
While general provision for confidential treatment of shared information hardly needs discussion, details about such treatment are often overlooked in joint defense agreements. For example, the agreement could state that confidential and privileged information of another member must be maintained in confidence, yet may be utilized by other members in support of their common interest. To avoid confusion, the agreement should go further and specify permissible use of the confidential information. For example, the agreement could provide that the confidential information may be incorporated into an opinion of counsel. Alternatively, if confidential information is not to be incorporated into other efforts or otherwise available to a broader audience, the agreement should say so. The agreement also can provide that no member, by words or action, has the power to waive privilege of another member.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?