Skip to main content

Imperatives of Client Service

Show Initiative

We’ll take the lead.

Imperatives of Client Service

Pay Attention to Tangibles

We keep an eye on the smallest of details.

Imperatives of Client Service

Be Accessible

Always within reach.

Imperatives of Client Service

Be Reliable

We keep our promises.

Find an Attorney

On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a provider of a service cannot be contributorily liable for copyright infringement of another when that provider does not induce the infringement or provide a service to the infringer that is tailored to infringement. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., No 24-171, ___ U.S. ___ (March 25, 2026). Merely providing an online service with knowledge that the user of the service will infringe and failing to take sufficient action to prevent the infringement does not demonstrate the intent necessary to establish contributory infringement. Moreover, failure to comply with the safe harbor practices in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not alone create liability for internet service providers who serve infringers. IP attorneys Alex MacKay and Sam Miller take a look at the issue in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a provider of an online service cannot be contributorily liable for copyright infringement of another when that provider does not induce the infringement or provide a service to the infringer that is tailored to infringement. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony...

LEXINGTON, Ky.—Lawdragon has named Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Chrisandrea L. Turner to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers. Turner has been recognized six times by Lawdragon. She is the only Kentucky attorney honored in 2026.

Turner is the Only Honoree from Kentucky LEXINGTON, Ky.—Lawdragon has named Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Chrisandrea L. Turner to the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers. Turner has been recognized six times by Lawdragon. She is the only Kentucky attorney honored in 2026. Lawdragon is a...
by Stites & Harbison, PLLC

LEXINGTON, Ky.—The American College of Construction Lawyers (ACCL) has elected Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Cassidy R. Rosenthal to its Board of Governors. She will serve a three-year term.

LEXINGTON, Ky.—The American College of Construction Lawyers (ACCL) has elected Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Cassidy R. Rosenthal to its Board of Governors. She will serve a three-year term. Rosenthal is a Member (Partner) of Stites & Harbison based in the Lexington, Ky., office. She is a construction attorney with...
by Stites & Harbison, PLLC

LOUISVILLE, Ky.—The American Bar Association (ABA) Health Law Section has ranked Stites & Harbison, PLLC in its 13th Annual Regional Top 10 Law Firm Recognition List. The firm ranked 5th on the South Top 10 list for 2025. Stites & Harbison has been honored 12 consecutive times on the South list.

LOUISVILLE, Ky.—The American Bar Association (ABA) Health Law Section has ranked Stites & Harbison, PLLC in its 13th Annual Regional Top 10 Law Firm Recognition List. The firm ranked 5th on the South Top 10 list for 2025. Stites & Harbison has been honored 12 consecutive times on the South...
by Stites & Harbison, PLLC

Patent portfolios often span multiple related entities – a parent corporation and its subsidiaries, spinouts, or partners. When patent applications share overlapping subject matter, a US Patent Examiner may raise an obviousness type double patenting (ODP) rejection. The usual fix, a terminal disclaimer (TD) pursuant to common ownership, is not available when the patents are owned by different entities. This can have very real effects when a parent company assigns some patent applications in a portfolio, such as application-focused patents, to one wholly owned subsidiary while other foundational patents remain with another wholly owned subsidiary. IP attorneys Grant Ehrlich and Kim Vines take a look at double patenting and more in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

Patent portfolios often span multiple related entities – a parent corporation and its subsidiaries, spinouts, or partners. When patent applications share overlapping subject matter, a US Patent Examiner may raise an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection. The usual fix, a terminal disclaimer (TD) pursuant to common ownership, is not available...

Our Clients