970
Showing all 6 results
-
MJ scores again – Basketball legend taking a shot at grocery store’s ad campaign
August / September 2014
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: When a Chicago-area grocery store chain used legendary Chicago Bulls player Michael Jordan’s identity in its advertising campaign, he responded with a $5 million lawsuit alleging violations of a number of laws. The ad congratulated Jordan on his Hall of Fame induction but included the chain’s logo and marketing slogan. In court, the chain claimed that this was noncommercial speech protected by the First Amendment. An appeals court ultimately ruled that the case could proceed, determining that the ad was nonprotected commercial speech. This article examines the court’s reasoning and, in a sidebar, its clarification of the proper use of the “inextricably intertwined” doctrine. Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. and SuperValu Inc., No. 12-1992, Feb. 19, 2014 (7th Cir.)
-
Estimating economic damages in wrongful death cases
January / February 2013
Newsletter: Valuation & Litigation Briefing / Litigation & Valuation Report
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: Calculating economic damages in wrongful death cases is deceptively complex. It requires an expert to consider a variety of factors to ensure that none of the decedent’s financial contributions are missed or double-counted. This article looks at those factors, which might include earnings history, lost earning capacity, employer-provided benefits and household services. A sidebar discusses whether it’s appropriate to exclude personal consumption.
-
Turning a blind eye backfires – Supreme Court addresses induced patent infringement
Year End 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: When a home appliance manufacturer copied a design from a competitor’s fryer that didn’t have U.S. patent markings, it was successfully sued based on the induced infringement theory, which, an appeals court said, requires a showing that the alleged infringer knew or should have known that its actions would induce actual infringement. But, finding the relevant provision ambiguous, the Supreme Court delved into the criteria necessary to satisfy the knowledge requirement. This article explains how its findings affected the case. A sidebar explains the effect that the recently passed America Invents Act is expected to have on patent law. Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6, May 31, 2011 (Supreme Court)
-
Tax treatment of debt forgiveness – Watch out for tax bills delivered “COD”
November / December 2011
Newsletter: Tax Impact
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: For many debtors receiving financial help, the initial feeling of relief is quickly replaced by surprise and confusion when they discover they owe taxes on cancellation-of-debt (COD) income. This article explains what qualifies as COD income, and what debts qualify as exceptions or exclusions. A sidebar explains how some COD income can be excluded under the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007.
-
Better get used to it – Court addresses patent infringement of an information system
August / September 2011
Newsletter: Ideas on Intellectual Property Law
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: When someone uses another party’s patented invention without authorization, it’s clearly infringement. But what qualifies as “use” when the invention is an information system? This article looks at a recent case in which a plaintiff alleged that another company’s billing system infringed its patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit helped clarify exactly what’s required to “use” a patented information system. A sidebar looks at another question addressed in the same case: What is the difference between making and using an invention? Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications Int’l, Inc., Nos. 2010-1110, 2010-1131, Jan. 20, 2011 (Fed. Cir.) Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Nos. 2009-1372, 2009-1380, 2009-1416, 2009-1417, April 20, 2011 (Fed. Cir.)
-
Buy-sell agreements – Sleep better with this key document in place
March / April 2009
Newsletter: Contractor
Price: $225.00, Subscriber Price: $157.50
Word count: 970
Abstract: Any construction company owner who still hasn’t considered how to handle the departure — expected or otherwise — of any of the company’s other owners could be putting the continuity of the business at risk. The good news is that a buy-sell agreement can help contractors sleep better at night. This article describes the basics of a sound agreement.