Open: Menu Kerr, Hendershot & Cannon, P.C. ${}${SEMFirmNameAlt}
Helping clients throughout texas and nationwide
local 713-893-1668
toll free 866-398-1856
Helping clients throughout texas and nationwide
Map & Directions|Contact Us
Open: Blog Navigation

Houston Business and Family Law Blog

Could Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl. reduce software patents?

In last week’s post, we discussed a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Limelight v. Akamai Technologies, that could affect patent litigation. In this week’s post, we will discuss another significant Supreme Court decision regarding patent law. In Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, the U.S. Supreme considered whether patent claims for inventions that are implemented by computer are eligible subject matter for patents. The court held unanimously on June 19 that Alice Corporation’s patents were ineligible for patent protection because they were abstract ideas.

Alice Corporation held several patents for a method of mitigating the risk that only one party in a financial exchange would pay what it owes. The method used a computer system as a third-party intermediary to ensure that both parties meet their ends of a financial agreement. Its patents covered the method of exchanging financial obligations, the computer system that carries out the method, and the program code for performing the method.

U.S. Supreme Court narrows patent protections in Limelight v. Akamai

A recently released U.S. Supreme Court decision could have a significant effect on patent lawsuits in the U.S. The case, Limelight Networks, Inc., v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., involves two technology companies who use content delivery networks to deliver web content to its clients’ Internet users. The court’s decision could be seen as narrowing the scope of U.S. patent law.

Akamai Technologies is the exclusive licensee of a patent for a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network to speed up Internet service during times of peak use. The company maintains numerous servers, and websites called content providers contract with the company to deliver the web content to individual users. Certain parts of a content provider’s site – often large files -- are stored on Akamai’s servers and accessed by Internet users. The process of determining which parts of the components will be stored on the servers is called tagging. Akamai does tagging for its customers.

How farms and ranches can complicate a divorce

A farm or ranch is not just another investment. It is a way of life. In Texas, farms and ranches are usually owned by families, partnerships or family-held corporations. Often, farms and ranches have been owned by the same family for multiple generations. When divorce happens, the ownership of the farm or ranch and the family’s legacy can be threatened.

Farms and ranches are complicated not just because a family legacy is at stake. The property itself is complex and includes far more than land. In addition to surface uses and buildings such as homes, stables and grain silos, farms and ranches may also have:

Without oppression claims, minority shareholders should plan ahead

The Texas Supreme Court’s decision in June that the state has no common law claim for minority shareholder oppression settled an area of business law that had been uncertain for decades. In doing so, the court also created new uncertainty for owners of closely held businesses.

The court ruling has the most immediate effect on shareholders who are currently in litigation over oppression claims because the legal basis for their claims suddenly changed. Regardless of whether they are involved in oppression claims, minority shareholders of closely held businesses face new challenges.

Do minority shareholders have remedies after Ritchie v. Rupe?

The Texas Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ritchie v. Rupe that the state does not have a common law claim for shareholder oppression is regarded as a blow to the rights of minority shareholders in closely held corporations. The court ruling also found that a state statute dealing with shareholder oppression does not authorize courts to force – which may be a preferred option for shareholders who are subject to oppressive conduct.

But as court’s opinion notes, even without an oppression claim, shareholders may still have options to hold controlling shareholders for oppressive behavior. The same actions that result in oppression claims can also be the basis for other causes of action. Many claims for shareholder oppression have also included claims for:

Texas Supreme Court: No common law shareholder oppression

The Texas Supreme Court has declined to recognize a common-law cause of action for minority shareholder impression. The decision, issued on Friday, June 20, has been widely anticipated and could have a significant impact on shareholder-related business law and business litigation matters in Texas.

In Ritchie v. Rupe, a minority shareholder in a closely held corporation accused the other shareholders of engaging in oppressive actions for refusing to buy her shares for fair value or meet with prospective buyers. A jury had sided with the minority shareholder, and as a remedy the trial court ordered the corporation to buy the minority shareholder's shares for $7.3 million. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District upheld the decision.

What is a trade secret under Texas's new law?

Trade secrets are the life of a business. They are the information that gives a business a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Because they are so important to the success of a business, misappropriation of trade secrets is a primary reason for business litigation and a major asset that businesses want to protect. Trade secrets are also the subject of recent law changes in Texas.

As of Sept. 1, 2013, the state adopted the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which is a uniform law that 47 states have adopted at least in part. Under the new law, the definition of a trade secret includes:

How broad is too broad for a noncompete agreement?

Noncompete agreements can be valid and enforceable in Texas, but they must meet certain requirements first. They must be reasonable in scope, duration and geographic area. These elements are not defined by statute. Instead a reasonable scope, duration or geographic area depends on the situation. In one recent case decided by the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, prohibiting an employee from working anywhere in the state was too broad.

The case involves a plaster salesman who began working for a Houston-based masonry supplier in October 2007. After working at the company for more than a year, he signed a noncompete agreement which prohibited him from revealing company information or from working for any stucco business anywhere in the state of Texas. If he violated the agreement, the agreement called for liquidated damages of $100 per day. 

How long does an adoption take in Texas?

If you are adopting a child in Texas, you are entering an exciting time in your life. It’s also a time when you will be involved with a complex and lengthy legal process. Once you have begun working with an adoption attorney, you should expect to wait at least six months before your adoption is finalized. Texas law requires a child to live in your home for six months before adoption.

In addition to the time requirement, the adoption process has myriad other legal requirements to complete. They include:

Creating custody schedules for children younger than 3

Custody issues become increasingly complex when they involve young children. During the formative early years of life, a child should build a bond with both mother and father, and child custody arrangements should reflect this fact. Custody and care giving for young children is more complex than deciding on what type of visitation each parent will receive.

In fact, Texas law allows children under age 3 to be treated differently than older children when creating child custody plans. The law provides more than a dozen factors for courts to consider when making decisions about custody for young children. They include the care the child received previously; the effect being separated from another parent might have on the child; the physical, behavior and other needs of the child; and many other factors. After age 3, the law provides that children can transition to a more standard custody and visitation schedule.

Main Office
Kerr, Hendershot & Cannon, P.C.
1800 Bering Dr #600
Houston, TX 77057
Phone: 713-783-3110
Toll-Free: 866-398-1856
Fax: 713-783-2809
E-Mail Us