Navigating Civil Standing Requirements for Defense Success — RICO Report Podcast
Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
Second Circuit Decision Potentially Broadens RICO Proximate Cause Element - RICO Report Podcast
Anatomy of a Successful Motion to Dismiss in RICO Case
A Discussion on the Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees Decision
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Case Involving Burger King Employee Spitting in Officer’s Burger Goes Before WA Supreme Court
Trade secret and contract claims often travel together. For example, a failed collaboration that involved the exchange of confidential information may result in the disclosing party alleging that the recipient both...more
In Bank United, NA v. GC of Vineland, LLC, Karen and William Scism and GC Vineland, LLC (“GVC”) (collectively the “Scism Parties”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Golden...more
A New York court once again declined to dismiss Smartmatic’s defamation lawsuit against Fox Corporation over Fox News’s coverage of Donald Trump’s “Big Lie.” The court found that the parent company, Fox Corporation, could...more
Conditions Precedent- In this appeal, the Eighth Appellate Court affirmed in part the trial court’s determination that Defendant breached its contract with Plaintiff disagreeing with Defendant-appellant that Plaintiff failed...more
A Massachusetts district court granted a product supplier’s motion to dismiss a distributor’s counterclaims that the supplier violated state franchise sales and consumer protection laws. The court found the distributor did...more
On September 13, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted in part and denied in part UMB Bank’s motion to dismiss counterclaims for tortious interference, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of...more
A federal court in Massachusetts has dismissed franchise claims brought against a manufacturer, concluding that the distributor had failed to identify a franchise fee that would qualify it for protection from non-renewal...more
We have previously reported on AbbVie’s first and second wave suits against Alvotech hf (Alvotech) in the Northern District of Illinois regarding an adalimumab biosimilar. In the first wave suit, on October 5, 2021 AbbVie...more
In Jan Dunning et al. v. Kevin K. Johnson, APLC et al., the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a developer and property owner could pursue its claims against a neighbor and project opponent for malicious prosecution...more
Contract Interpretation McCruter v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins. Co., 11th Dist. Lake No. 2019-L-167, 2021-Ohio-472- In this appeal, the Eleventh Appellate District affirmed in part and reversed in part the lower court’s...more
By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Leonard P. Stark in Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Hyosung TNS, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 19-1695-LPS (D.Del. March 4, 2021), the Court granted in part and denied in part...more
In Hershey v. Mount Vernon Partners, LLC, Judge Green faced dueling motions to dismiss in a dispute arising from the purchase of an “ultra-luxury” condominium in Beacon Hill. Judge Green granted Brett Hershey’s motion, in...more
In Crotty v. Continuum Energy Technologies, Judge Salinger granted Thomas Crotty’s special motion to dismiss counterclaims for tortious interference brought by Continuum Energy Technologies (CET) and John Preston under the...more
On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., No. 18-1086, addressing the subjects of claim and issue preclusion. The Court held that claim preclusion (or...more
Lucky Brand has emerged victorious in the latest skirmish of its nearly 20-year trademark litigation battle with Marcel Fashions, a competitor in the apparel business. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group,...more
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court unanimously rebuffed the Second Circuit’s attempt to expand the scope of res judicata to include the so-called concept of “defense preclusion” – a novel doctrine that would...more
On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. that Lucky Brand was not precluded from raising a defense that it could have raised in a previous trademark...more
The outdated pair of acid washed jeans that your dad wears to mow the lawn seem brand new in comparison to the nearly 20 years of litigation between Lucky Brand and Marcel over the use of various “Lucky” trademarks. Last...more
On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the latest round of a 20-year long trademark dispute between Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. and Marcel Fashion Group, Inc. over the use of “Lucky.” ...more
In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., the United States Supreme Court recently considered for the first time whether and the extent to which it should recognize “defense preclusion” as a valid...more
In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of jeans manufacturer, Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. ("Lucky"), in its protracted trademark battle with Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. ("Marcel"), holding that Lucky...more
On May 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., that a party is not precluded from raising new defenses, when a subsequent lawsuit between the same...more
Competitors with similar trademarks can find themselves in long-running trademark disputes, making for bitter rivals. Multiple rounds of litigation are not only contentious, but also expose litigants to procedural pitfalls....more
On May 14, 2020, in a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the US Supreme Court overturned the “defense preclusion” doctrine proposed by the Second Circuit, upholding the requirement that preclusion of a defense...more
The Supreme Court yesterday issued its second trademark decision of this term. In Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., Case No. 18-1086 (S. Ct. May 14, 2020), the ultimate question before the Court was...more