A MoFo pro bono case settled in early 2020 is proving its value, as children in California are gaining basic literacy skills as a direct result of new funding made possible by the settlement....more
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a dispute between LinkedIn and hiQ Labs has spotlighted the thorny legal issues involved in unauthorized webscraping of data from public websites. While some may...more
Supreme Court Abolished Federal Circuit's Test for Willfulness -
On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s...more
8/13/2016
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Appeals ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Authorship ,
Books ,
Burden of Proof ,
Collaboration ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Employee Mobility ,
Enhanced Damages ,
EU ,
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ,
European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Film Industry ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Harmonization Rules ,
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons ,
Objective Unreasonableness Standard ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
Prevailing Party ,
Remedies ,
SCOTUS ,
Screenplays ,
Seagate ,
Standard of Review ,
Trade Secrets ,
Trademark Registration ,
Trademarks ,
UK ,
UK Brexit ,
Unlawful Disclosure ,
Whistleblowers ,
Willful Infringement
Recently, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. §505, the...more
WHAT’S NEW -
Yesterday, the Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, in deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, 17...more