Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Jason Rockman Comments on Confirmation of FRAND Decision

Media Mentions

July 31, 2015

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Jason Rockman provided comment for an article outlining the impact of the Ninth Circuit Court's confirmation of the decision related to Motorola's appeal of the landmark decision related to Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) patent licensing rates for standard-essential patents. The confirmation could provide guidance for future FRAND cases, many believe. According to Jason's analysis, "'The Ninth Circuit has determined that satisfying a FRAND obligation is something different than a patent law action, and while the Federal Circuit's guidance in interpreting minimum reasonable royalty factors for patent infringement may be adapted to the RAND determination it is not controlling ... This presents a challenge to the bar in predicting whether and how a client may satisfy their FRAND obligation.'"

The article, "3 Takeaways From 9th Circ.'s Motorola FRAND Decision," was published by Law360 on July 30, 2015 and is available online.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.