Eighth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Putative Class Claims
DE Under 3: Reversal of 2019 Enterprise Rent-a-Car Trial Decision; EEOC Commissioner Nominee Update; Overtime Listening Session
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
Court of Appeals Reversals from a Criminal Perspective | Jim Huggler | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
The Dangers of Untimely Filings – What Employers Need to Know
Nota Bene Episode 98: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Mark on U.S. Antitrust Law for 2020 with Thomas Dillickrath and Bevin Newman
#BigIdeas2020: NLRB’s Actions Impact Employers in 2020 - Employment Law This Week® - Trending News
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Podcast: South Dakota v. Wayfair
E17: Carpenter Decision Builds Up Privacy from #SCOTUS
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Bradley scored a significant victory in the Tennessee Supreme Court on November 14, 2024. In a long-awaited decision, the Tennessee Supreme Court clarified a long-standing inconsistency in Tennessee law with its opinion in...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019) that a trademark licensor’s rejection of a trademark license does not terminate the licensee’s right to use...more
On May 20, 2019, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. ---, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019), the Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits, holding that a licensor’s rejection of a trademark license in...more
What happens to the business of a trademark licensee when the licensor goes bankrupt has always been an uncertain gray area....more
Recently, in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that rejection of a trademark license by a licensor-debtor in bankruptcy generally does not rescind the right of a...more
On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court resolved a significant issue of trademark and bankruptcy law that was decades in the making....more
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited and important decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, 587 U.S. __ (2019) (the Supreme Court decision), resolving a split amongst various...more
The United States Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC (No. 17-1657) (May 20, 2019) resolved a deep circuit split and held that a licensees’ rights under trademark licenses survive a...more
The Supreme Court recently limited the ability of debtors to use contract rejection in bankruptcy to shed unwanted trademark licensees. But the Court acknowledged that the result could change if the trademark licensing...more
In February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court finally resolved a trademark law issue that had remained unsettled for years: whether a bankrupt trademark owner may revoke a trademark licensee’s rights to a licensed trademark by...more
On May 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision that a bankrupt debtor and trademark licensor cannot rescind the licensee’s rights to use its trademark by rejecting thelicense agreement in bankruptcy. See...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc., v. Tempnology, LLC clarifies that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license under § 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is treated as a breach, and...more
Two years ago, we wrote about a noncompete decision in which a special referee found a business seller had breached a sales agreement by violating both a noncompete covenant and an exclusive sales provision contained in the...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently held that a successor employer, who was assigned non-competition agreements as part of an asset purchase, could seek to enforce the non-competition agreements...more