News
[07/29]
Initial jobless claims drop to 457,000
[07/22]
Elevated jobless claims point to weak labor market
[07/22]
Additional jobless benefits hinge on House vote
[07/19]
Obama to GOP: Restore jobless benefits
More...
Articles
FMLA Leave
The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA or the Act) gives most employees time off from work to deal with urgent personal circumstances. The situations covered by the FMLA include new children, serious illness and military service. This article provides a concise summary of a complex law.
More...
Are Employers Liable for Injuries to Others Caused by Employees?
In some instances, employers may be held liable for the injuries and damages caused by those they employ. Generally, it will have to be proven that the employer knew or should have known that employee's conduct could result in injury to a third party before an employer can be held liable for an employee's acts. Additionally, state statutes may impose a requirement that the injury occurred during working hours or "under the color of employment." Employers normally are not held responsible for torts caused by employees when they are not working.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[06/28]
Bilski v. Kappos In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.
[06/23]
Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co. In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the '201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury's verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.
More...
|
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.
|