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
Latty Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Innovation Policy at Duke Law In a flurry of recent decisions, the Supreme Court has continued its skepticism of administrative agencies. Consider first staredecisis and the Court’s overruling of Chevron deference (i.e. no standing requirement).
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. Cochran , the justices will decide whether federal district courts have the power to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the commission’s administrative law proceedings. That’s all for this week.
Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine in its recent decision in Relentless v. Facts of the Case The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the two cases to address whether Chevron U.S.A. Under Chevron’s two-step analysis, a reviewing court must first assess “whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue.”
City of Rancho Palos Verdes , the Supreme Court today holds immunity under Government Code section 830.6 , that generally protects California public entities and employees from liability for injuries “caused by the plan or design of a construction of, or an improvement to, public property,” is not as broad as government defendants want.
Share The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. The United States is easily the most successful petitioner before the Supreme Court, winning review in over 70% of the cases in which it files a cert petition. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
In the past, both the USPTO and patent attorneys have largely ignored the larger scope of administrative law, but in recent years USPTO operations have been under tighter control from the White House, and courts have increasingly asked whether the agency is following the rules. Importantly, the Supreme Court in Cuozzo Speed Techs.
The Supreme Court of Nigeria and the Judicature The Nigerian Supreme Court is necessary for the legal system’s stability, coherence, and sustainable evolution. [2] The Supreme Court of Nigeria and the Judicature The Nigerian Supreme Court is necessary for the legal system’s stability, coherence, and sustainable evolution. [2]
USPTO (Supreme Court 2022) focuses the question of whether COURTS have power to create non-statutory patentability doctrines. That patent finally issued in 2018–only after SawSafe filed a civil action and received a court-judgment in its favor. by Dennis Crouch. The new petition in SawStop v. 2016 Decision ]. 593 (2010).
Share On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether federal trademark law applies to trademark infringement that takes place outside the United States. The facts Hetronic, based in Oklahoma, manufactures and sells radio remote controls that operate heavy-duty construction equipment. In Abitron Austria GmbH v. It owns U.S.
20-1394 (Supreme Court 2021). This is a core civil procedure case pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has now issued a Call for the Views of the Solicitor General (CVSG)–seeking the government’s input on whether to hear the case. Likewise, the court has rejected patent-specific procedural rules.
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