July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"
You are embroiled in a contentious trade secret lawsuit. In the midst of the litigation, your competitor files for bankruptcy and proposes to sell its assets. Do those assets include the trade secrets? Which court makes that determination?
A petition for writ of certiorari in the ongoing dispute between bankrupt Qimonda AG and certain licensees has been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court and briefing on the petition was recently completed. On Dec. 3, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed[1] the U.S.
Editor’s Note: Tech Talk is a regular feature of the ABI’s Technology and Intellectual Property Committee’s Newsletter that highlights existing and/or emerging technology that might be useful to the bankruptcy community. Reference to a particular company or product is for example purposes only, and is not intended to promote or endorse the product or company.
Cloud computing has been getting a lot of attention recently as a way to save money and time, as well as to facilitate better communication and collaboration.
On July 26, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued In re XMH Corp.,[1] recognizing for the first time in a published U.S. Court of Appeals opinion that a trademark license is not assignable in bankruptcy without the licensor’s consent. This recognition, however, comes with a significant caveat. Although the opinion, authored by the respected Judge Richard A.
In these economic times, situations involving a licensing counterparty filing for bankruptcy are becoming more common, so it is vital for practitioners to address bankruptcy issues upfront during the negotiation of the licensing agreement. This is especially true for licensees who often rely heavily, if not exclusively, on a licensor for significant aspects of their business.
When last we spoke of net neutrality, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") was considering the case of Comcast which was accused of using new technology to peek inside packets traversing its network and intentionally slowing or degrading the operation of "peer-to-peer" and similar applications. One of the potential motivations for Comcast's behavior is that peer-to-peer applications are often used to exchange media content [music or video] that might be substituted for the content Comcast sells to its cable customers.
Net neutrality is a term coined by the telecommunications industry to refer to the use of the Internet in delivering a variety of communications media such as voice (VoIP), video and music. The FCC is poised to determine (or not determine) the regulatory treatment of the Internet in a variety of pending proposed rulemaking and forbearance dockets. The outcome of these proceedings may well predict the next wave of winners and losers in telecommunications arena and, correspondingly, the next candidates for corporate reorganization.
Internet special interests like Google, eBay, Amazon and Moveon.org are lobbying hard for new utility-like regulation of broadband competitors called “net neutrality.” Fearing hypothetical discrimination, net neutrality regulation proponents want government to preemptively mandate a one-tier Internet where all Internet traffic would be treated equally.
