Recently in Commercial Law Category

Thinking about making some cash selling your massive iTunes library? Think again.

A federal judge has declared a unique website enabling the online sale of pre-owned digital music files unlawful. "The first sale defense is limited to material items, like records, that the copyright owner put into the stream of commerce," ruled U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan.

This is bad news for ReDigi, which launched in October, 2011 with a bold idea: If the "first sale" doctrine in copyright law permits the re-selling of acquired copyrighted material, let's create an online market for "used" digital music.

Judge Sullivan's ruling has, for now, dampened the idea of reselling of digital goods. If it holds up, the ruling could mean digital sales venues would have to get the permission of right holders. Stay tuned for updates on this evolving area of the law.

An affidavit has surfaced in which lawyers at the world's largest law firm trade casual e-mails about running up legal bills for a client. One attorney jokes "that bill shall know no limits." Another described a colleague's approach to the assignment as "churn that bill, baby!"

It's not every day you read documentary evidence of possible churning -- the creation of unnecessary work to drive up a client's bill. But that appears to be what The New York Times found in a Manhattan Supreme Court filing last week involving the law firm DLA Piper.

DLA Piper is in a fee dispute with client Adam H. Victor, an energy industry executive. DLA Piper sued Mr. Victor for $675,000 in unpaid legal bills. Then Mr. Victor filed a counterclaim, accusing the law firm of a "sweeping practice of overbilling."

Do law firms inflate bills by performing superfluous tasks and overstaffing assignments? Here are some highlighted portions of DLA Piper's emails:

"I hear we are already 200k over our estimate -- that's Team DLA Piper!" wrote Erich P. Eisenegger, a lawyer at the firm, the Times reports.

"Now Vince has random people working full time on random research projects in standard 'churn that bill, baby!' mode. That bill shall know no limits," replied another DLA Piper lawyer, Christopher Thomson, noting that a third colleague, Vincent J. Roldan, had been enlisted to work on the matter.

A DLA Piper spokesman told TheTimes the firm did not comment on pending litigation.

Samsung had reason to celebrate this week after a federal judge declared that its infringement of Apple iPhone design and utility patents was not a willful scheme.

Still Samsung, the world’s largest device maker, still owes a mammoth fine for violating some Apple intellectual property. But it could have been much worse.

U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled Tuesday that she predominantly agreed with the jury’s decision that Samsung infringed on seven of Apple’s design and utility patents. However, she disagreed with one finding — that Samsung “willfully” infringed on Apple’s patents.

This means is that Apple will not be able to triple its damage awards. If Koh had agreed with the jury on this decision, Apple could have collected up to as much as three times in damages from Samsung.

The trial between the two tech giants wrapped up in August after the jury awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages. However, the two sides have been slugging it out over a final judgment on damages.