Remove Construction Remove Court Decisions Remove Litigation Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently O

Qualcomm , a case focusing on appellate standing following an IPR final written decision favoring the patentee. The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. Rather, an appellant must show concrete injury caused by the PTAB decision and redressability of that injury.

Laws 95
article thumbnail

Ninth Circuit Holds Berkeley’s Gas Ban Preempted by U.S. Energy Policy & Conservation Act

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

The court overturned a District Court ruling to invalidate a Berkeley, California, prohibition on natural gas infrastructure in newly-constructed buildings. Berkeley’s so-called “natural gas ban” was the first local ordinance in the country to effectively require all-electric construction of new buildings.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Estoppel; Pre-SAS Partial Institution Cases; and Rethinking Caltech

Patently O

. § 315(e)’s IPR estoppel provision applies only to claims addressed in the final written decision, as consistent with the holdings in Shaw , and Intuitive Surgical , and whether that interpretation remains correct after SAS Institute, Inc. Once the IPR concluded, district court litigation restarted, focusing on claim 27.

Statute 58
article thumbnail

SCOTUS Clarifies Reach of FAA Exemption for Transportation Workers

Constitutional Law Reporter

All this “complexity and uncertainty” would “‘breed[] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.’” The Court next turned to Flowers argument that the §1 exemption would sweep too broadly without an implied transportation-industry requirement. goods across borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce.”

article thumbnail

FDA Announces It Will Now Regulate Devices as Devices

FDA Law

FDA claimed that Congress afforded FDA the discretion to regulate devices as drugs based an overlap in the statutory definitions of “drug” and “device” and chose to do so in the case of contrast agents in response to a 1997 court decision and related Citizen Petition.

Statute 52
article thumbnail

When is the use of a product a “substantial noninfringing use” for purposes of Section 271(c)?

Patently O

This seems both untenable as a practical outcome and inconsistent with both the statute and governing precedent. This issue arose in the context of calculating lost profit damages in a 1995 decision of the en banc Federal Circuit, Rite-Hite Corp. Kelley Co. , 3d 1538 (Fed. citing Eli Lilly and Co. Actavis Elizabeth LLC ).

article thumbnail

December 2020 Updates to the Climate Case Charts

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. The federal district court for the Western District of Washington vacated U.S. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.

Court 59