1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |What Is a "Regular and Established Place of Business," and Did I Waive Venue by Accident?

What Is a "Regular and Established Place of Business," and Did I Waive Venue by Accident?

Event | 07.26.17, 12:00 AM UTC

Address

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse)
40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007

Register

Crowell & Moring New York counsel Anne Li and 2017 summer associates Brian McGrath and Greg Manring join the Hon. J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and Stuart Pollack, Partner, DLA Piper, for a panel discussion hosted by the Honorable William C. Conner Inn of Court.


Session description:
Under the Supreme Court’s recent T.C. Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC decision, patent infringement actions can only be brought where a defendant has a “regular and established place of business.” Is this a new defense? Was it waived? What does a “regular and established place of business” mean anyway? Come join us for a mock oral argument on these pressing issues.  


A reception will follow.  


This program has been specifically designed to satisfy 1.0 NYS CLE Credit of transitional and non-transitional CLE credits for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys. The Honorable William C. Conner Inn of Court has been certified by the New York State Continuing Legal Education Board as an Accredited Provider of continuing legal education.


For more information, please visit these areas: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation, Patent Litigation

Participants

Insights

Event | 02.20.25

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today

Has the Buss Stopped? Recoupment Today: In 1997, the California Supreme Court decided Buss v. Superior Court. In Buss, the court concluded that a liability insurer that defended a mixed action could seek reimbursement from the insured for the defense costs associated with the claims that were not even potentially covered. Since then, numerous courts have held that insurers are entitled to recoup their defense costs associated with uncovered claims or causes of action. On the other hand, a significant number of courts have rejected insurers’ right to recoupment, at least in the absence of a policy provision granting the insurer that right. Some commentators have even suggested that the current judicial trend might be away from permitting insurers to recoup their defense costs. Is that correct? Has the Buss stopped? This panel of coverage experts will analyze insurers’ claimed right to recoupment today, and offer their perspectives on what the law on recoupment should perhaps be and might be in the future.

View All Insights