Search Results (326)
Documents on Litigation, Technology & Science
Show: results per page
|Optional Safety Features: Let the Sophisticated Purchaser Decide|
Joseph P. Wodarski; Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP;
November 8, 2014, previously published on May 14, 2014Products used in an industrial setting, such as forklift trucks, are typically designed to offer the purchaser the option of choosing certain safety features and excluding others that are available. The particular setting where the product will be used (its operating environment) will dictate which...
|E-Discovery Matters: “A Guide to ESI Preservation Responsibilities”|
Daniel M. Braude; Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP;
November 8, 2014, previously published on August 15, 2014I am pleased to announce the availability of our firm’s updated publication, A Guide to ESI Preservation Responsibilities. I believe this white paper serves as a useful resource to anyone dealing with the complicated issue of preservation of electronically stored information (ESI),...
|Brown v. Tellermate: Cloud-based Data and E-discovery|
Matthew A. Barley; Butler Snow LLP;
September 24, 2014, previously published on September 5, 2014According to PC Magazine, “[i]n the simplest terms, cloud computing means storing and accessing data and programs over the Internet instead of your computer’s hard drive.” Cloud-based computing has become a very popular tool in day-to-day business operations. This relatively new...
|Acceptable Use of Technology Policies: How to Manage Employee Privacy Expectations With Respect to Personal Use of School Technology|
Kelly J. Morris; Borden Ladner Gervais LLP;
September 18, 2014, previously published on September 5, 2014When school employees are permitted to use their work computers for personal purposes, they are entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy. While the exact scope of that privacy right is not entirely clear, the adoption by schools of an acceptable use of technology policy applicable to staff...
|SJC Issues Decision Concerning Recovery of Lost Profits Damages in Commercial Litigation|
Stefanie Giuliano Abhar, Laurence A. Schoen; Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.;
September 1, 2014, previously published on August 25, 2014In a noteworthy recent decision addressing the parameters of damages in commercial litigation, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) affirmed an order excluding expert testimony concerning future lost profits damages relating to “yet-to-be conceived future products.” In...
|SD3 v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. - District Judge Axes Complaint Alleging Table Saw Safety Standards Conspiracy|
Leo Caseria; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
August 6, 2014, previously published on August 4, 2014The pen may be mightier than the sword, but not necessarily mightier than the table saw. On July 15, 2014, in SD3 v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-191 (E.D. Va.), District Judge Claude M. Hilton dismissed antitrust claims by SD3 and Sawstop against several manufacturers of...
|Southern District Magistrate Judge Clarifies FLSA “Computer Professional” Exemption|
Rachel J. Tischler; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
August 5, 2014, previously published on August 4, 2014In an April 2014 decision in the Southern District of New York, Olorode v. Streamingedge, Inc., No. 11 Civ. 6934 (GBD) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2014), employers were given some clarification on the Computer Professional overtime exemption available under the Fair Labor Standards Act...
|Federal Circuit Says Commission Must Toe the Line in Invisalign ITC Case|
Courtenay C. Brinckerhoff; Foley & Lardner LLP;
July 25, 2014, previously published on July 23, 2014In Align Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that ITC action that violated ITC’s own regulations warranted vacatur under the Administrative Procedures Act. While the case addresses specific ITC regulations, the same principles apply to other agencies,...
|Supreme Court Hears Arguments Regarding Induced Infringement in Limelight|
H. Wayne Porter; Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.;
May 6, 2014, previously published on May 1, 2014On April 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc. The issue in this case is whether there can be liability for induced infringement if no party is liable for direct infringement.
|Federal Court Rules That Zip Code Alone is Not an Address Under D.C. Credit Card Transaction Law|
Benita A. Kahn, John L. Landolfi, Lisa Pierce Reisz, Eric S. Whisler; Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP;
April 21, 2014, previously published on April 18, 2014Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that restrict the collection of personal identification information at the point of sale when payment is made by a credit card. Retailers received good news recently from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in Hancock v. Urban...