We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 57

BONDing with NPE's - the requirement for security for costs or expenses under Section 1030 of the California Code of Civil Procedure

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 29 2013

A little used and often overlooked provision of the California Code of Civil Procedure recently played an important role in three recent cases

The Kardashian Sears marriage causes the girls to end up in court

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 22 2011

Kim Kardashian filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Old Navy for using a modelactress that allegedly looks like her and calls her to mind in its commercials

Supreme Court rejects single entity treatment for the National Football League's licensing activities

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 3 2010

On May 24, 2010, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Seventh Circuit and held that because the 32 teams of the NFL are independent centers of decision-making and could potentially compete with each other for the licensing of their separate intellectual property, “the NFL’s licensing activities constitute concerted action that is not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1.”

California Court of Appeal clarifies what constitutes "use" of a trade secret

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 21 2010

In a recent case, Silvaco Data Systems v Intel Corp, 184 Cal App 4th 210 (April 29, 2010), the California Court of Appeal clarified what constitutes use of a trade secret in the software context

FTC gets shut down - once again - in its bid to change how courts view reverse payment settlements

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 3 2010

As previously reported on this blog, in January 2009, the Federal Trade Commission launched its latest challenge to the legality of reverse payment settlements in the pharmaceutical industry, this time directed at two settlements involving the brand-name drug AndroGel

California court takes on trade-secret preemption of other civil claims

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 21 2010

Recently, a California court of appeal took up an issue that is more often examined by federal courts than state courts: trade-secret preemption of related tort claims

Supreme Court grants certiorari better to define the first sale doctrine

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 5 2010

On April 19th, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether, in the context of a copyright infringement claim, the first sale doctrine applies to imported goods manufactured abroad

District court holds gene sequences not patentable subject matter

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 1 2010

On March 29, 2010, in the highly publicized and closely watched case of Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v. U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. (real parties in interest patent holders Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation), the District Court in the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and held that 15 claims in Myriad’s 7 patents relating to human BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (Breast Cancer Susceptibility genes 1 and 2) (collectively “BRCA12”) are invalid because they claim non-patentable subject matter

Federal Circuit confirms written description requirement in Ariad

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 25 2010

On March 22, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued an important en banc decision upholding a separate written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112

The Southern District of New York sends a clear message to retailers selling counterfeits that failing to exercise due diligence in purchasing products after an injunction may result in trebled damages of millions of dollars

  • Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 22 2010

In Fendi Adele S.R.L. v. Burlington Coat Factory, No. 06 Civ. 85 (LBS), 2010 WL 431509 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2010), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in light of the prior 1987 injunction prohibiting defendant Burlington Coat Factory ("Burlington") from selling counterfeit Fendi products in its stores, recently held that the continued sale of counterfeit handbags featuring the trademarks of plaintiff Fendi Adele S.R.L. ("Fendi") violated the prior order, was in contempt of the district court's prior order, and awarded treble damages against Burlington