Posts by Diane Ghrist
TVI Corporation, et al. v. Gallagher, et al.
Chris O’Mahoney The Delaware Court of Chancery has shown a renewed interest in holding corporate founders also serving as directors subject to shareholder derivative actions when the founders engaged in self-dealing to leverage control over the board. On October 28, 2013, the Delaware Court of Chancery handed down in the case TVI Corporation et al.…Read More
A Setback for Cable Streaming Start-Ups in the Fight Against FOX
Ryan Van Olst In Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC, the D.C. District Court granted Fox Television Stations and several other television network providers a preliminary injunction against FilmOn X for possibly infringing their public performance right under the Copyright Act. Fox alleged that FilmOn X unlawfully streamed television shows over the Internet…Read More
Providing Inequitable Conduct Clarity: Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp.
Eddy Rivero In Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed that HTC did not infringe on Intellect’s patents, which claimed a method to send images and caller ID information over a wireless network. The court found that the patent applicant and founder of Intellect Wireless, Daniel Henderson, engaged in inequitable conduct stemming…Read More
Salem Financial: The Final Nail in the Coffin for STARS Shelters?
By Darshan Chulani, Senior Staff Writer In late September, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims handed down a decision that is widely believed to spell the end of STARS transactions in their current form. Structured Trust Advantaged Repackaged Securities, or STARS, have been in use since the late 90s as a means of generating foreign…Read More
Keeping the BPAI in Check: Rambus Inc. v. Rea, 2013 WL 5312505 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2013)
Ronny Valdes On September 24, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI), on U.S. Patent No. 6,260,097 (ʼ097 patent), regarding claim construction and obviousness of the patent. The Federal Circuit notably clarified the process the BPAI…Read More
Joffee et al. v. Google, Inc., 2013 WL 4793247 (9th Cir. 2013)
Breanne M. Hoke In Joffe et al. v. Google, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that Google could be sued for illegal wiretapping under the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, when the company collected data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks through its use of Street View photographs. The Ninth…Read More
Anna Nicole Smith’s Eternal Bankruptcy Legacy
This week, the New York Opera and the Brooklyn Academy of Music are featuring the U.S. premier of Anna Nicole, an Opera based on the “tumultuous life of Anna Nicole Smith – stripper, playmate, and formidable tabloid queen.” However, Anna Nicole Smith was also a formidably litigious client. In fact, she made it to the…Read More
How High Must a Pig Jump? Assessing the Hurdles Facing the Smithfield-Shuanghui Acquisition
Hunter Deeley Shuanghui International Holdings Limited and Smithfield Foods, Inc. announced in May that Shuanghui would acquire all outstanding shares of Smithfield for $34.00 per share in cash, an acquisition valued at $4.7 billion. Upon completion, Shuanghui’s purchase of Smithfield would be the largest takeover of a U.S. company by a Chinese company. The size…Read More
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 133 S.Ct. 2517 (2013)
Juhi Tariq In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court heightened the causation standard for retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court held that an employee must prove that the only reason an employer retaliated was because the employee engaged in a protected activity, which it…Read More
Judicial Ethics and the Aluminum Company of America
In today’s Wall Street Journal, an article appeared discussing the decline of the raw aluminum smelting company Alcoa. The name Alcoa harks back to the 1945 section 2 antitrust case, United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (Alcoa), which most famously stated that a single firm controlling 33% of the relevant market is not enough…Read More