In House: Litigation Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in Litigation Category

You remember the circular patch with the star, the canvas, the white rubber, the white stitching? They're Chuck Taylors, right? Except when they're not -- and that's the problem. Nike, which owns Converse, is suing companies like Walmart, Kmart, and Sketchers, alleging infringement on the trademarks it claims in Converse's iconic Chuck Taylor All Star shoes.

How bad could it be? The Huffington Post provided screen shots of Walmart and H&M websites selling "sneakers" or "canvas lace" shoes that look eerily (maybe illegally) similar to Chucks. In all, 31 companies are being accused of trademark infringement in the United States and globally in a separate complaint with the International Trade Commission.

Here's an interesting statistic: According to a 2013 study by the Open Technology Institute, 75 percent of VCs and 20 percent of venture-backed startups had been affected by patent trolls. In the biotech/pharmacy/medical device industries, only 13 percent were affected.

But according to a recent article by Inside Counsel, that may be changing: Patent trolling against the medical device industry is on the rise, spurred in part by the higher royalties, damages awards, and nuisance settlements.

You've probably heard of "Call of Duty." It's one of the biggest video game series, in terms of sales, of all time. In "Call of Duty: Black Ops II," real-life dictator-turned-prisoner Manuel Noriega makes an appearance as ... a dictator.

Turns out Noriega (the real one, not the video-game character) is mad and is suing over the use of his likeness. Activision, the company behind the game, is trying to get the case tossed and has enlisted a very interesting choice of counsel to help: former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Attorneys for BP, the multinational energy company, were called out this week for sneakily reducing the line spacing in a court filing. What can lawyers learn from this incident?

As if it weren't enough for BP to recklessly operate the Deepwater Horizon, sending millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing millions in economic damage to the Gulf Coast, killing some people, and incurring billions in fines, they had to go and pull a junior high trick.

Here's what happened:

Imagine you run a website. We'll call it "Schreddit." It's a website where millions of people around the world post interesting news items, comments, and images. One day, a user posts a link to stolen celebrity nude photos -- celebrities like, oh, we'll call her "Schmennifer Schmawrence." Does your company have to take the posting down?

Naturally, it's the same as the answer to all legal questions: "Maybe. It depends." The Communications Decency Act (CDA) prohibits online obscenity, but that's not very important. Within the Act is a so-called safe harbor provision, found in 42 USC § 230, which immunizes computer service providers from torts committed by users of those services.

If your company operates any kind of online forum, you should make sure you know all about it.

The date is set. The witnesses are being prepped. And the lawyers are under more pressure than ever to come up with a reasonable settlement.

Have you been missing out on the real-life Silicon Valley drama (as opposed to the hilarious HBO dramedy)? Apple, Intel, Google, and Adobe allegedly agreed to not poach each others' talent, creating the sort of anticompetitive agreement that depresses salaries.

Though initial estimates of the companies' exposure were in the billions range, the companies settled for ... $324 million, a number that made us get our eyes checked, caused one plaintiff to file a formal rejection, and which U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh soundly rejected.

Will we see another settlement, or will his head to trial in early January?

The Ninth Circuit has upheld Yelp's practice of manipulating ratings in order to extract advertising fees from businesses.

Several different businesses sued Yelp, all alleging about the same thing: Yelp removed some positive reviews from their business' Yelp pages, causing their ratings to go down. Yelp then appeared on a white horse, offering to "help" them with their negative reviews -- for a price. The subtext (which isn't so sub rosa as it is glaring rosa) is that Yelp intentionally removed positive reviews, then extorted money from the businesses in exchange for restoring the positive reviews (or, alternatively, threatening to remove positive reviews if businesses didn't pay up in the form of buying advertising from Yelp). One business owner signed such an agreement and found that her positive reviews were restored days later.

Keurig 2.0. It's the new version of Keurig's ubiquitous pod-based single-serve coffee machines. What's the 2.0 about? The machines come with DRM protection and the ability to brew larger pots.

DRM, if you're unfamiliar, stands for Digital Rights Management. In plain English, Keurig 2.0 machines will only take Keurig-authorized cups which have a special ink marker on their foil tops, reports The Verge. Except, that DRM may have already been broken by rival companies before the 2.0 machines even hit the market.

Unless the announced product was created pursuant to a licensing agreement, we could be looking at yet another round of Keurig in the courtroom.

We recently reported on the Alabama Supreme Court decision allowing brand-name drug manufacturers to be held liable for injuries sustained from generics. The decision has prompted a whole host of hand-wringing and a parade of horribles from places like The Wall Street Journal and Claims Journal. The three separate dissents in the case also insisted that the ruling was anti-business and would lead to more lawsuits.

If you're the GC of a drug company, should you be worried?

Earlier this week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Barnes & Noble couldn't enforce an arbitration agreement against a customer. The only notice of the arbitration clause was buried in an agreement the user had to find by clicking a link to it on Barnes & Noble's website.

These agreements -- called "browsewrap" or "clickwrap" agreements -- are popular because they bury the lede in fine print -- which the Ninth Circuit said wasn't OK.

In order to protect the enforceability of your website terms of service, here are five alternatives to "clickwrap"/"browsewrap" agreements that should past the Ninth Circuit's muster: