Show: results per page
|Internet Defamation Removal and the Known Defamer: How Knowing the Identity of a Defamer Changes the Court Order Technique|
Jordan S. Cohen, Colleen M. Devanney, Whitney C. Gibson, James W. Kelly; Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014Defamatory content posted online can significantly harm the reputation of a business or individual, especially when it is listed among top search engine results. In general, accuracy is irrelevant to search engines, as their respective search results are organized by relevancy and not quality....
|U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Critical Issue for Securities Fraud Class Actions|
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014On March 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, which presents whether to overrule or significantly limit plaintiffs’ ability to rely on the legal presumption that each would-be class member in a securities fraud class...
|A Temporary Impairment May Be A Disability Under The ADAAA|
Ruth A. Horvatich; McGrath North Mullin & Kratz, PC LLO;
March 10, 2014, previously published on First Quarter 2014When does an impairment become a covered disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act? In the first published federal appellate court decision to apply the expanded definition of “disability” contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008...
|Are We Headed Toward “Basic Writ Small”?|
Patricia A. Gorham, Amelia Toy Rudolph, W. Scott Sorrels, Steuart H. Thomsen, Bryan M. Ward; Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in the closely watched Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317, which places in the Court’s crosshairs the continued viability of the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance first articulated by the Supreme Court in...
|U.S. Department of Transportation Issues Emergency Order Requiring Additional Testing and Stricter Rail Transportation Requirements for Crude Petroleum|
Harriet McConnell, Craig V. Richardson; Greenberg Traurig, LLP;
March 10, 2014Any person who offers petroleum crude oil for transportation or who transports bulk petroleum crude oil by rail must comply with a new Emergency Order issued by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) on February 25, 2014. The Order is effective immediately and is just one of the...
|Does Myriad Alter the Patentability of Natural Products?|
Leslie Kushner, Robert S. Schwartz; Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 2014Whether the US Supreme Court’s June 13 2013 ruling in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc, 133 S Ct 2107 (2013) — that “[a] naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated” — is...
|Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision|
Sullivan Cromwell LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014In Lawson v. FMR LLC, No. 12-3 (Mar. 4, 2014), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of whistleblower protection provided by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”), holding that employees of private contractors and subcontractors of public companies are protected by the...
|Supreme Court Broadens Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections, Extends Coverage to Employees of a Public Company’s Private Contractors|
Nicholas S. Feltham, Mary P. Hansen; Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 7, 2014In its March 4, 2014, opinion in Lawson v. FMR LLC the Supreme Court extended the whistleblower protections of 18 U.S.C. § 1514A to include not only employees of public companies, but also employees of privately held businesses that provide services to public companies. This important decision...
|USPTO to Apply Myriad Beyond Isolated DNA|
Antoinette F. Konski; Foley & Lardner LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 5, 2014Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued a Guidance, advising examiners and the public of the factors for determining whether an invention satisfies the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §101, as applied to patent-eligibility. See...
|United States Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split and Narrows Scope of SLUSA|
Robin A. Achen, John P. Stigi; Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP;
March 10, 2014, previously published on March 6, 2014In Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, Nos. 12-79, 12-86 and 12-88, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1644 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2014), the Supreme Court of the United States resolved a split in the circuits regarding whether alleged misrepresentations were made “in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered...