One of the sensual and ineffable pleasures of life is a satisfying meal, whether prepared at home or partaken of at a restaurant. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) temporarily expanded the pathway to this pleasure by providing for the full deductibility of business expenses paid or incurred from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022 for food or beverages provided by restaurants. Full deductibility is set forth in Section 274(n)(2)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”). Prior to the CAA, the deductibility of restaurant meals, like all other food and beverage business expenses, was subject to a 50 percent limitation. Since the CAA did not define “restaurant,” the precise scope of full deductibility remained uncertain. In Notice 2021-25, the IRS defined “restaurant,” and its definition removes a significant degree of this uncertainty. A restaurant means a business that prepares and sells food or beverages to retail customers for immediate consumption, regardless of whether the food or beverages are consumed on the business’s premises. A restaurant does not include a business that primarily sells pre-packaged food or beverages not for immediate consumption, such as a beer, wine, or liquor store; convenience store; drug store; grocery store; kiosk; newsstand; specialty food store; or vending machine. The 50 percent deduction continues to...
Following last month’s enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), significant limitations on multidefendant infringement suits are now in effect. Specifically, the joinder provision of the AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 299, permits accused infringers to be joined in one action only if any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or arising out of the same transactions or occurrences; and, common questions of fact as to all defendants will arise in the case. Simply put, patentees can no longer sue multiple defendants in the same litigation based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent(s)- in-suit.
Corporate Reorganization Absent Assignment or License of Patent Rights Results In Preclusion Of Patentee’s Lost Profits Damages
In a decision that highlights the import of assigning or licensing intellectual property assets during corporate reorganization, a district court recently ruled that a plaintiff patentee was not entitled to lost profit damages based on the patent at issue in an infringement action. In Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. v. Cooper Cameron Corporation (CAED January 24, 2011) Duhn Oil Tool, Inc. filed suit against Cooper Cameron Corporation alleging patent infringement. Following discovery, the defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the plaintiff patentee was not entitled to lost profits damages.
On Wednesday evening, October 19, 2010, the New Jersey Business and Industry Association (NJBIA) presented its annual “Awards For Excellence” to eleven New Jersey businesses for laudable Business Expansion, Environmental Quality, as Outstanding Employers, and for Public Service. Gibbons P.C. was amongst four companies honored for Public Service, joining two Gibbons clients, Peloton Advantage, LLC, the winner of the Business Expansion Award, and Hall’s Warehouse Corp., honored with a NJ Businesses Environmental Quality Award.