Arianna Frankl, Leo Leyva and Raimundo Guerra of Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard examine state power to tax Internet sales, litigation over New York’s statute, and the state of congressional activity in this area.
Benjamin Gruenstein and Alan Guy of Cravath, Swaine & Moore write: It remains to be seen whether the Second Circuit’s affirmation of ‘Bowman’ in ‘Vilar’ will place a limit on the class of criminal laws to which ‘Morrison’ will apply. The potential impact of ‘Vilar’ on several criminal laws familiar to white-collar practitioners is analyzed herein.
John G. Powers and Nina I. Brown of Hancock Estabrook write: In New York, the question of whether the original designer bears any continuing liability in tort for injuries occurring after the product’s design left its control is answered largely through consideration of two cases: ‘Emslie v. Borg-Warner Automotive’ and ‘Sage v. Fairchild-Swearington’.
Mark J. Abate and Calvin E. Wingfield Jr. of Goodwin Procter write: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is currently considering en banc the level of deference to which a district court’s interpretation of patent claims is entitled in ‘Lighting Ballast Control’. The court’s decision, however, will not resolve a growing uncertainty about the proper methodology for construing patent claims in the first place.