More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law) In a corporate dissolution action, petition for writ of supersedeas requesting a stay pending appeal of the trial court’s decree requiring that payment be made for outstanding shares is denied where judgments in special proceedings and self-executing orders are not automatically stayed by the filing of a notice of appeal.
aviation attorney
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Copyright, Government Law, Intellectual Property) 28 U.S.C. section 1498(b), which governs copyright infringement suits against the federal government, does not authorize this suit by a federal prisoner seeking to recover for the government’s use of desk-blotter calendars he created as part of his assigned duties in prison. Plaintiff was “in the service of the United States” when he developed and produced the calendar at a government facility, using government-furnished computers, under the supervision of government employees, in exchange for modest compensation.
In re Comiskey
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a method and system for mandatory arbitration involving legal documents, such as wills or contracts, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1-59 of applicant’s patent application as obvious in view of the prior art and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 103 is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) applicant’s independent claims 1 and 32 and most of their dependent claims are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101; and 2) with respect to two other independent claims and various other dependent claims a remand to the PTO was necessary for it to consider the section 101 question in the first instance.
accident attorney tampa
More info…
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Ethics & Disciplinary Code, Ethics & Professional Responsibility) District court decision that the courtesy and civility provisions of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) plaintiffs lack standing because they have failed to demonstrate actual present harm or a significant possibility of future harm based on a single, stipulated reprimand; 2) plaintiffs have not articulated their intended speech and conduct; and 3) plaintiffs have not sufficiently established a threat of future sanction under the challenged provisions applied by the Michigan Supreme Court.
Florida Lawyer
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
January 21, 2009 9:22 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe