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
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.
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.
. § 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 courtlitigation restarted, focusing on claim 27.
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.”
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 courtdecision and related Citizen Petition.
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 ).
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.
On applicable law for environmental pollution (Article 7 Rome II), a pinnacle of business and human rights as well as climate change litigation. Predictability is the core ambition, not a particular outcome in litigation. The higher regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Frankfurt a.M. found differently.
Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) 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 proposed project involves construction of three new water intakes to divert water from the Sacramento River.
The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. United States , involving the scope of a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences for extraordinary and compelling reasons. GEO asserted that it had derivative sovereign immunity under the 1940 Supreme Court case Yearsley v.
The meaning of these distinctions is at the core of the current litigation over the 2020 CARES Act. They further claim that subsequent statutes, federal agencies and appeals courtdecisions have all already recognized the corporations as entities eligible for federal contracting under the ISDA.
According to the Court majority, when a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run at the end of the state-courtlitigation.
Coverage of federal fraud statutes Porat v. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit affirmed his conviction. Similarly, to permit them to do public works projects in the Philadelphia area, Stamatios Kousisis and his company, Alpha Painting & Construction Co., Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed.
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. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Derivative Litigation , No. and non-U.S. 19-1189 (U.S. filed Sept.
In this article, I analyze all 104 closely divided Supreme Courtdecisions from 2020 onwardthe Barrett eraeach decided by either a 54 or 63 vote. In contrast, issue areas involving economic regulation, technical statutes, or immigration enforcement yield predicted probabilities close to zeroindicating near-total bloc alignment.
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 District of Montana is to consider these issues on remand. and non-U.S. 20-35412 (9th Cir.
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. Minnesota Supreme Court Declined to Review Claims Regarding Environmental Review for Oil Pipeline. and non-U.S. 97182-0 (Wash.
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 Court’sdecision concerned the interpretation of 28 U.S.C. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati. and non-U.S.
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. DECISIONS AND SETTLEMENTS. In re: Border Infrastructure Environmental Litigation , No. and non-U.S.
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. Maine Federal Court Declined to Enjoin Work on Electric Transmission Project. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.
climate litigation database , and looks ahead at what we may see next. With some exceptions, federal agencies formerly defending Biden administration climate actions requested that the cases be held in abeyance to allow new political leadership time to be briefed on the litigation and to determine how to proceed.
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. On June 16, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a joint motion to dismiss appeals of a November 2020 order vacating U.S.
Beyond funding-related attacks, the administrations policy on environmental and climate justice has led to the discontinuation of litigation that the federal government brought under President Biden. Such actions have been, and more likely will be, challenged in court.
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. Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. and non-U.S.
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. s consumer protection statute. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Koati. and non-U.S.
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 court further found that EPCA’s legislative history did not support the plaintiff’s “expansive interpretation.” and non-U.S.
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