This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Although these decisions may not have as significant an impact in patent law as in other areas, they do pose interesting puzzles with respect to stare decisis as well as agency rulemaking and discretion that will provide many litigation opportunities going forward. Liquidia Technologies, where UTC has filed a petition for certiorari.
But broken down to its most basic principles: An NFT is a non-fungible token based on blockchain technology. Most likely, it will take a couple of room-clearing court decisions to help owners and litigants navigate their waters. Julian Pipolo is an Australasian lawyer working at a top-tier firm predominantly in administrativelaw.
Menell, Koret Professor of Law; Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology; Faculty Director, Berkeley Judicial Institute; University of California at Berkeley School of Law. Prior to the mid-1990s, patent litigation took place in district court silos. Patent Case Management Goes International.
The Legal Technology Resource Center ’s Women of Legal Tech initiative is intended to encourage diversity and celebrate women in legal technology. This initiative launched in 2015 with a list of innovators and leaders in legal technology and with this year’s additions, that list now includes 141 talented and influential women leaders.
.” Setting the stage in its complaint, Nike asserts that it is in the business of “investing heavily in research, design, and development” in order to create novel “technologies and products that enhance athletic performance, reduce injury, and maximize comfort all while reducing waste.”
The first case involves Axon Enterprise, an Arizona company that makes police body cameras and other technology products for law enforcement. That point is made most tellingly in Cochran’s case: She’s already won on that route once (after Lucia ) and she’s still at the SEC in litigation four years later.
The FCC has already issued such an extension three times since the initial compliance deadline of May 26, 2015, as the NAB contends that there still is no workable technology that can perform the functions required by the rule (see our Broadcast Law Blog article here from the last extension 5 years ago).
If they have chosen (a), the parties might stipulate which court and in which jurisdiction the matter will be litigated. The use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in public interest litigation brings both substantial and procedural advantages.
Liquidia Technologies, Inc. 23-1217) This is an administrativelaw case asking when the APA requires the PTO to conduct formal rulemaking. Eolas Technologies v. Are claims drawn to solving specific problems in computer-network technology patent-eligible under § 101 and Alice? United Therapeutics Corporation v.
New Patently-O Law Journal article by David Boundy , a partner at Potomac Law Group, PLLC. Mr. Boundy practices at the intersection of patent and administrativelaw, and consults with other firms on court and administrative agency proceedings, including PTAB trials and appeals. By Jason Rantanen. COVID-19Impact).
The Scramble to Identify Major Questions in AdministrativeLaw In its June 2022 decision in West Virginia v. The challenge of meeting changing conditions in administrativelaw is known as the pacing problem: scientific and technological developments will nearly always outstrip the pace of government oversight.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has openly stated that the purpose of this litigation is to protect the fossil fuel industry , and the only representatives of the automotive industry in the case have entered to defend EPA’s new standards. This doctrine was recently and prominently applied by the Supreme Court in West Virginia v.
The court concluded that the claims merely involve abstract ideas implemented with conventional technology, such as general-purpose processors and mobile applications, without any meaningful inventive concept. The decision reflects a trend in patent law towards limiting patents on basic or routine technological applications.
Area of Law: Constitutional Law, Civil Rights, Federal Authority: 25 points. AdministrativeLaw, Criminal Law: 20 points. CA9) This case involved a shareholder, Fiyyaz Pirani, who filed a putative class action against Slack Technologies, Inc., Concurring Opinion: +15 points per opinion. Kahn, and Avery E.
” She also pressed counsel to distinguish between different types of harms and resources diverted by organizations in a way that might affect their standing in litigation. As the Court weighs these decisions, their approaches could shape not only the outcomes of these cases but the broader trajectory of constitutional law.
climate litigation database documents two facial challenges to the first Trump administrations EO 13771. The plaintiffs focused on alleged delays of the V2V technology rule and an energy efficiency standard for commercial water heating equipment. Climate Litigation Database. The Sabin Centers U.S.
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit is poised to address a significant administrativelaw question in Apple v. The NHK-Fintiv framework emerged through two precedential PTAB decisions that guide discretionary denials of IPR petitions when parallel district court litigation is pending. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,
These appointments are already influencing rulings on key areas, including administrativelaw, corporate litigation, and constitutional law. Given the highly political nature of these aims and the precedent of the first Trump administration, legal challenges to changing regulations are likely. The Judges response?
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content