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.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 91,526

Notice of prior suit against company does not constitute adequate notice of later suit against directors and officers

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 8 2008

A Florida appellate court has held that a D&O policy issued to a company does not afford coverage for shareholder lawsuits against directors and officers of the company (the "Shareholder Suit") filed after the policy expired, even though the company had tendered during the policy period a lawsuit filed against the company over a failed merger as well as a state insurance investigation into the company's reserve levels (the "Prior Proceedings") because the Prior Proceedings did not provide the insurer with sufficient notice that the earlier matters could lead to shareholder suits against the company's directors and officers

A party must hold all legal rights or exclusionary rights to a patent to have constitutional standing to sue for infringement

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., Nos. 06-1512, -1518, -1537 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the plaintiff had standing to sue Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) for patent infringement and, as a result, held that the district court lacked jurisdiction and vacated its infringement rulings

No liability for joint infringement where party did not control or direct each step of the claimed method

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., No. 06-1503 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of noninfringement to Paymentech, L.P. (“Paymentech”) because Paymentech did not perform each step of the asserted method claims and did not direct or control the performance of each step of the asserted method claims

Employer liable for damages due to employee “burn-out”

  • Bird & Bird
  • -
  • Netherlands
  • -
  • February 13 2007

In a recent case an employee claimed damages from his employer, stating that he had suffered from burn-out syndrome due to prolonged exposure to excessive stress at work

No infringement by equivalents where specification criticized prior art attachment means

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In L.B. Plastics, Inc. v. Amerimax Home Products, Inc., No. 06-1465 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and grant of SJ of noninfringement

The specification must enable the entire scope of a claim, including the novel aspect, to satisfy the enablement requirement

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc., Nos. 06-1013, -1037 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of SJ of invalidity of claims 1-44 of Automotive Technologies International, Inc.’s (“ATI”) U.S. Patent No. 5,231,253 (“the ’253 patent”), holding that the claims of the ’253 patent were invalid for lack of enablement

“Damages” does not include punitive damages; insurer’s duty to defend ends where complaint seeks only punitive damages

  • Wiley Rein LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 12 2007

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, applying Florida law, has held that the definition of "damages" does not include punitive damages and, therefore, an insurer's duty to defend ended once the complaint was amended to seek only punitive damages

Aerospace Publishing Ltd v Thames Water Utilities Ltd - reinstatement or diminution in value

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 14 2007

Where a claim is made in respect of a chattel which has been destroyed negligently by a third party, the claimant will only be entitled to the replacement value where it is reasonable to replace the chattel and the cost of replacement is reasonable. In practice, the cost of reinstatement will only be awarded where the claimant intends to reinstate the chattel

$2.5 million to one person to settle race discrimination suit

  • Masuda Funai Eifert & Mitchell Ltd
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 7 2008

On January 2, 2008, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a $2.5 million settlement of a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest military contractor

Application to set aside an order for enforcement of an arbitration award of the Beth Din unsuccessful

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 13 2007

In Kohn v Wagschal and Others 2006 EWHC 3356 (Comm) a dispute arose between three sisters (the applicants) and their brother (the respondent) regarding the division of the assets of their late father, who had died intestate

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy