Intellectual Property – May 23, 2012

by Ronald Coleman on 4/27/2012

See the associated moving brief. This is the reply brief preliminary statement: Defendant Opinion Corp. (“defendant” or “Opinion Corp.”) submits this reply memorandum in further support of its motion to dismiss the...more

by Pillsbury Social Media, Entertainment &... on 4/11/2012

In one of the most closely followed cases involving the digital millennium copyright act (DMCA), an appeals court punted one of the key issues back to the lower court. The key issue left open relates to what constitutes...more

by Ronald Coleman on 4/2/2012

Another lawsuit against PissedConsumer.com, another motion to dismiss. The preliminary statement: Defendant Opinion Corp. is, as set forth in the Complaint, the corporate owner of an Internet website called...more

by Shafik Bhalloo on 3/21/2012

Courts and law have often been criticized for being slow moving and not keeping up with new technologies, however, Canadian courts, in the recent past, have shown a resolve to keep up with, or at least not fall too far...more

by Robert Freedman on 3/17/2012

A review of the practical impact of the trademark decision Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc. ...more

by Bay Oak Law on 2/21/2012

Nondisclosure Agreements ("NDAs") are everywhere: a Silicon Valley Don Juan had an NDA ready for every date. However, NDAs are not created equal -- what is good for the discloser is not good for the recipient. The "Silicon...more

by Bay Oak Law on 2/14/2012

The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees due process of law. One type of due process is knowing the details of the accusations in a court of law against you. But in trade secret misappropriation cases, the trade...more

by Ronald Coleman on 1/31/2012

Order on motions by plaintiffs seeking requirement of $100,000 appeal brief and nearly $700,000 in attorneys' fees and costs in Lanham Act statutory damages case where both final judgment and order awarding attorneys' fees...more