Showing page 65 of 79
Are you sure it’s from the CEO? 5 Ways to Protect Your Company from Business Email Compromise (BEC) Crimes
Last week, a successful Minnesota company fell victim to a crime being aimed at companies with a global presence and traveling executives.
The Internal Revenue Service has announced the 2016 cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for retirement plans.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals struck down the building code mandate requiring installation of fire sprinklers in larger homes.
For all the protection the attorney-client privilege offers, it presents a bevy of potential pitfalls that may lead to the ultimate disclosure of the privileged documents.
The Court of Justice of the European Union effectively invalidated the E.U. – U.S. “Safe Harbor” program in a decision released on Tuesday.
If you sit on your rights as a patent owner, you may lose your claims against infringers. Patent owner Dane Technologies recently learned that lesson the hard way.
Magistrate Judge Rau Offers Primer on “Prevailing Party” Status Under the Patent Act’s Attorney Fees Provision
Patent law permits the award of legal fees to a “prevailing party” only in “exceptional cases.” A recent decision from Magistrate Judge Rau applying the Patent Act’s attorney fees provision reminds litigants that demonstrating a case is “exceptional” in only one part of the equation.
The Department of State and USCIS announced jointly that certain individuals who are stuck in family and employment-based immigrant visa backlogs can start their immigrant visa paperwork or apply for adjustment of status before their priority dates become current.
District Court in Octane Fitness Remand Awards Majority of Requested Attorneys’ Fees Under Section 285
In a lawsuit that redefined the standard for an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the District Court awarded defendant Octane Fitness $1,778,030 in fees and costs.
Want to Preliminarily Enjoin the Sale of an Infringing Device? Be Prepared to Show the Value of Your Patent
The District Court of Minnesota denied a patent holder’s motion to preliminarily enjoin the sale of an infringing device.