Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims
An Uncompromising Insurer: What is a Policyholder to Do?
Hinshaw Insurance Law TV: Recent Changes in Florida Property Insurance Law and How They Will Affect First Party Insurance
Podcast - The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Lord of The Rings Author’s Estate Clings to its Precious Trademark, Blocking JRR Token
The Briefing from the IP Law Blog: Lord of The Rings Author’s Estate Clings to its Precious Trademark, Blocking JRR Token
Butler's Thursday Tips #7 | Civil Remedy Notices
Subro Sense Podcast - Considerations In Fixed Funds/Limited Pool Scenarios
Protecting Your Brand in China
ENERGY HEATING, LLC v. HEAT ON-THE-FLY, LLC - Before Moore, Prost, and Stoll. Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota. Summary: Enforcing a patent with knowledge that it is invalid can...more
SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Applying the proper test for willful...more
The recent case of Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Marzullo, et al., — N.E.3d —-, 2020 IL App (1st) 191790 (1st Dist. Dec. 21, 2020), demonstrates the peril that attorney fees sanctions present for litigants who bring...more
On February 11, 2019, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Woodley v. Style Corp. d/b/a Servpro of Shoreline/Woodinville, No. 77352-6-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2019). The case...more
In a case of first impression, Judge Gregg Costa of the Fifth Circuit, affirming a lower court decision, held that a dismissal without prejudice of a Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) case does not support a prevailing-party...more
Gust, Inc. v. AlphaCap Ventures, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 28, 2018) In an appeal from a district court decision awarding fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927, the Federal Circuit reversed. The decision makes...more
The Holding - In Preciado v.Young American Insurnace Company, 2017 WL 2805631 ( Ariz.App . June 29, 2017) (unpublished), the Arizona Court of Appeals held the trial court erroneously failed to grant an Insurer’s motion for...more
Supreme Court Advance Release Opinions: Released after 11:30 a.m. SC19568, SC19569 - Mayer v. Historic District Commission - The statutory grounds for aggrievement for zoning appeals do not apply to Historic...more
In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more
In Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. (No. B234271A, filed 11/3/16), (“Nickerson II”) a California appeals court outlined the requirements for complying with the single-digit multiplier annunciated as a Constitutional...more
In Johnson v. Omega Ins. Co., 2016 Fla. LEXIS 2148 (Sept. 29, 2016), the Florida Supreme Court determined that the 5th DCA misapplied and misinterpreted two statutes, the first providing a presumption of correctness to the...more
A recent Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, The Home Loan Investment Co. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 827 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2016), demonstrates that, although multiple jurisdictions may recognize similar defenses...more
In Brandt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff proves that an insurance company withheld policy benefits in bad faith, attorneys' fees reasonably incurred to compel payment of the...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit adopted and applied the Supreme Court of the United States’ rationale for an award of attorneys’ fees in patent cases to a trademark case. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit aligned...more
On June 9, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled in Nickerson v. Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., __ Cal.4th ___ (2016) that the attorneys’ fees awarded to a veteran who sued for benefits under a “hospital stay” policy should be...more
On July 22, 2015, the Pennsylvania trial court in Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Civ. Action No. 98-813 (Pa. Common Pleas, Jul. 22, 2015) filed a supplemental opinion under Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) in connection with the appeal...more
Earlier this week, employers in the Garden State saw another glimmer of hope for defending against frivolous claims brought under New Jersey’s whistleblower statute, the Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”),...more
In Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s award of $180,817.50 in attorneys’ fees plus costs to Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. as the...more
A California appellate court recently affirmed the trial court’s ruling in Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. that the defendant (“Maxim”) was entitled to attorney’s fees under California...more