Postings Law Summaries
Page 3 of 368 of Securities Law Summaries » New Releases/No Action Letters < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Changes to Implement Miscellaneous Post Patent Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act
37 CFR Part 1, Docket No. PTO–P–2011–0072, RIN 0651–AC66,
01/5/2012
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act expands the scope of information that any party may cite in a patent file, to include written statements made by a patent owner before a Federal court or the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office or USPTO) regarding the scope of any claim of the patent, and it provides for how such information may be considered in ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, and post grant review.
More...
SEC v. Richard F. Syron, et al./SEC v. Daniel H. Mudd
Case Nos. 11cv9201-2, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
12/16/2011
The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans. More...
The Equity for Visual Artists Act of 2011
S. 2000, H.R. 3688,
12/15/2011
Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, has introduced legislation designed to let visual artists share in revenues generated by the resale of their works. More...
Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings
Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, NewsNet Issue 446,
12/28/2011
The U.S. Copyright Office has issued its report on Federal Copyright Protection for Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, as required under the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009. More...
Changes To Implement the Supplemental Examination Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and To Revise Reexamination
USPTO No. 12-07, 37 CFR Part 1, Docket No. PTO–P–2011–0075, RIN 0651–AC69,
01/25/2012
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed rules of practice in patent cases to implement the supplemental examination provisions of the America Invents Act. More...
Page 3 of 368 of Securities Law Summaries » New Releases/No Action Letters < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Postings Law Commentaries
Following are Postings Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Postings Law Summaries.
Page 3 of 33 of Postings Law Commentaries < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc
Posted: 07/15/2011
Commentary: In a unanimous decision, the Sixth Circuit held that section 12112(b)(6) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers’ use of tests that tend to screen out disabled individuals does not protect employees who are not disabled. In Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc., decided November 3, 2010, the Court held that, although non-disabled individuals may bring claims under some provisions of the Act, the plain text of subsection (b)(6) concerning “impermissible medical examinations” only covers individuals with disabilities.
More...
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al. v. Siracusano
Posted: 06/29/2011
Commentary: The United States Supreme Court has ruled that in securities cases under §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 the requirement of the materiality of a defendant’s misrepresentations cannot be reduced to a bright-line rule. Facts giving rise to a strong inference that a defendant acted with the required state of mind are sufficient at the pleading stage. In Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al. v. Siracusano, decided March 22, 2011, the Court held that the material misrepresentation or omission by the defendant and scienter that are requisite elements of §10(b) and Rule 10b–5 claims did not require the shareholder plaintiffs to allege that the reports that the defendant received showed statistically significant evidence that their product caused the medical problem at issue. The Court was more flexible in its approach to materiality and scienter, considering all the evidence presented. This ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs in securities cases to get their claims past the pleading stage and to have the trier of fact decide the issues.
More...
In re BP Lubricants USA, Inc.
Posted: 06/16/2011
Commentary: In an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement applies to false marking claims under §292. In In re BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 97 U.S.P.Q.2d 2025 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit found that Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement does apply to false marking claims and that a complaint alleging only conclusory allegations of intent is insufficient. This decision will certainly impact pending false marking cases, many of which may be dismissed after this decision for failure to comply with Rule 9(b).
More...
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Posted: 04/14/2011
Commentary: The Federal Circuit recently rejected the 25 percent rule in calculating damages and assessing a reasonable royalty. In Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2011 WL ________(Fed. Cir. Jan. 4, 2011), the Federal Circuit found that the 25 percent rule of thumb was an arbitrary rule and was not tied to the particular facts of the case. Therefore, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its reliance on the Georgia-Pacific factors and held that these factors “properly tie the reasonable royalty calculation to the facts of the hypothetical negotiation at issue.”
More...
Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Comm’ns Int’l, Inc. et al.
Posted: 04/6/2011
Commentary: In an issue of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered the definition of the term “use” for purposes of infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a) where elements of the allegedly infringing service were in the possession of more than one individual. In Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Comm’ns Int’l, Inc. et al., 2011 WL ____ (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2011), the Federal Circuit found that there is no requirement that elements of the allegedly infringing service be in the possession of one individual.
More...
Page 3 of 33 of Postings Law Commentaries < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
