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
United States broke no new ground, as it followed a steady line of cases applying a rule under which time limits in federal statutes do not create jurisdictional bars unless the statute makes that intent clear. Sotomayor wrote that jurisdictional rules “have a unique potential to disrupt the orderly course of litigation.”
The district court also noted that “to the extent that there is a tangible item to mark by which notice of the asserted method claims can be given, a party is obliged to do so if it intends to avail itself of the constructive notice provisions of section 287(a).” ” (quoting Am. Eng’g Corp. , 3d 1523 (Fed. ” Id.
285, determining plaintiff’s litigation positions were not baseless even after a granting of summary judgment of noninfringement that “was not a close call.” . However, a defendant need not show that the litigation is both objectively baseless and brought in bad faith. Motorola Solutions, Inc. ,
First, the applicant must meet precise eligibility requirements under the statute. That statute is known as the jurisdictional bar. Meehan responded that once the court applies all the possible canons of statutory construction, it should conclude that the statute “must mean the overall denial of relief.” a green card).
The patentee primarily these cases on claim construction on two simple terms — based largely on statements made during prosecution to skirt the prior art. . This construction excused Nokia from infringement, since the accused Nokia system is arranged in a grid of 50-meter-by-50-meter bins. Sprint Communications Company , No.
Deepsouth litigated its case to the Supreme Court, and the Court eventually allowed the company to escape some portion of its adjudged liability based upon the territorial limits of U.S. ” However on certiorari, the Supreme Court felt itself bound by the statute and precedent. patent law. Deepsouth at 531.
using the data model to construct a client application also with the user interface paradigm. ” During claim construction, Microsoft had asked for the term to be construed as meaning “no human labor required.” Microsoft’s counsel then asked, “Can we resolve the claim construction issue?”
RELDI represented Win With Wind in litigation before the PSC to advocate for the project. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management before construction can begin. The statute also requires the development of at least 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind electricity generation by 2035—up from zero today.
By looking at how the word “judgment” is used in other sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the courts’ presumption “that a given term is used to mean the same thing throughout the statute,” the government argues that subparagraph (B)(i) should be read to refer only to discretionary decisions. Finally, citing to INS v.
Jicarilla Apache Nation , the court held that the United States owes no duty to Indian tribes except those expressly noted in treaties, statutes, or regulations. Following cases such as United States v. The post Supreme Court rules 5-4 against Navajo Nation in water rights dispute appeared first on SCOTUSblog.
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. A challenger wouldn’t necessarily have to hurry to the courthouse.
The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. A lot of litigation power is being spent on whether or not the plaintiff’s choice of judge (Judge Albright) will stick.
The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates a 15-year mandatory minimum for Section 922(g) offenders (the federal felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute) with at least three prior violent felony or serious drug offense convictions, so long as those convictions were “ committed on occasions different from one another.”
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. Clean Air Act, not EPCA.
Proper venue is rarely a big deal these days in Federal Litigation. Congress amended the venue statutes so that, in most cases, venue rises and falls with personal jurisdiction. In the late 1800s Congress created a special venue statute for patent cases that has stuck despite changes in the general law.
Throughout the litigation, Washington had claimed that its different treatment of the Hanford site workers resulted from the dangerous nature of the work and was not discrimination against the federal government per se.
When a litigant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), that motion should be analyzed under the provisions of the TPPA rather than under the traditional Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 analysis. Rock Creek Construction, Inc. , In Reiss v. internal citation omitted).
They may be involved in the research of case laws, statutes, or regulatory provisions and thereby display their proficiency in mining large legal repositories to dig out precedents, relevant statutes, and other important information.
Photo by Mathias Reding on Unsplash Climate change litigation has finally reached the world’s highest court. The question put to the ICJ must be a legal question within the meaning of the Statute of the Court and the UN Charter as opposed to a political question. This analysis has precedents in domestic climate litigation.
Transmission lines are, like generation facilities, often held up by litigation. Construction and operation of an interstate natural gas pipeline requires a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulation Commission (“FERC”) under Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. Three Regulatory Regimes.
Once the IPR concluded, district court litigation restarted, focusing on claim 27. The statute is not crystal clear on this point–even more so now that we recognize that partial institution was improper. But, lets look at the statute. But, lets look at the statute. I have been struggling through this statute.
Barring unusual claim construction, an accused system cannot infringe both claims 2 and 3 since they are claimed in the alternative. ” In this particular case, the district court did not rule on the merits of the of the excuse, but ruled that that the concern had been raised too late in the litigation to be viable.
The statute at issue 28 U.S.C. Apple had argued for a narrow claim construction of the claimed “impact on said mounting surface,” but Judge Corley concluded that such claim construction disputes are inappropriate for resolution at the motion to dismiss stage. 3d 201 (5th Cir. 9,996,738 to proceed.
Stark reversed the TTAB’s cancellation order, finding the statute only permits cancellation for fraudulent acts taken while obtaining the registration , not for establishing incontestability. The dispute here involves two adjacent provisions of the Federal Trademark statute known as the Lanham Act of 1946 (as amended).
The case does not expressly decide any patent law issues, but does provide some guidance as to how courts should approach mixed questions of law and fact (such as claim construction) and the right to a jury trial. FTC (standard for showing objectively baseless “sham litigation” exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity).
The law on excessive penalties may be different in other states, and in some instances state law may limit local authority to impose fines or penalties in other ways, such as by statute. The court has little patience for this argument. Quoting an earlier case, Oriental Blvd.
Note: I was involved in litigating patents from this patent family when owned by the predecessor-in-interest. I am no longer involved the litigation. The district court concluded that the patentee Eazy-PZ had engaged in litigation misconduct—all of which was associated with the asserted utility patent. Luv N’ Care, Ltd.
That prevision bars an IPR petitioner involved in patent litigation from asserting any invalidity grounds that the petitioner had “raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review.” The scope of estoppel provided by 315(e) has been subject to substantial litigation. ” Id. ” Slip Op.
All this “complexity and uncertainty” would “‘breed[] litigation from a statute that seeks to avoid it.’” According to the Court, this requirement “undermines any attempt to give the provision a sweeping, open-ended construction,” instead limiting §1 to its appropriately “narrow” scope.
States, however, retain primary authority over “ siting, permitting, and construction ” of most transmission lines. Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has authority to regulate “ the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.” FERC Order No.
They enable attorneys to convey their clients position clearly and persuasively, leading to better outcomes in litigation and transactional work. Citing case law, statutes, and other authoritative sources strengthens your position. Constructive criticism provides valuable insights into areas of improvement.
You’ll note that the statute does not suggest any difference between well-known or novel elements in their use of means-plus-function language. Rather, as the statute recites, the scope is “construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.”
Both courts disagreed with FDA’s broad assertion of discretion, as neither the statutory construction nor the legislative history supported such discretion. Thus, FDA will evaluate the primary intended purposes and mechanism of action for all products, and then comb the statute for any language suggesting otherwise.
Among the main legal statutes are: Law 164 of 1994 on the UNFCCC. Despite a strong climate change legal framework, the lack of implementation of statutes and case law is a prevalent and persistent issue in Colombia. Law 629 of 2000 on the Kyoto Protocol. Law 1523 of 2012 on risk management.
It is cross-posted at Transnational Litigation Blog. Supreme Court yesterday upheld the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s corporate registration statute, even though it requires out-of-state corporations registering to do business within the state to consent to all-purpose (general) personal jurisdiction. Washington (1945).
BADC cites the late Justice Scalia’s admonition that courts must avoid interpretations “[incompatible] with the reason [and] purpose of the statute.” Congress did not intend for the USPTO to have that latitude. Antonin Scalia, Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law , 1989 Duke L.J. ” 5 U.S.C. §
Indeed, to use a litigation term, his opponent could be viewed as “opening the door” to such rebuttal by raising the theme of unity in the aftermath of the controversy when Sharma believes that she helped fuel of a campaign of disunity. General Construction Co. , 269 U.S. General Construction Co. , 269 U.S.
Responding to questions asked by the Ninth Circuit about California law, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan precludes an action alleging a construction worker’s wife contracted COVID from her husband due to his employer’s failure to abide by government health orders at the beginning of the pandemic.
Not surprisingly, due weight was given to Switzerland and Belgium, as the former is considered to have a model legislation on the discipline and the latter has the “youngest” statute of continental Europe.
As a matter of statutory construction, absent explicit language, statutes are generally intended to apply prospectively. We will be monitoring developments in this litigation. Here, FDA has not issued a rule or other formal administrative action, but it has—in what are purportedly non-final actions—pressed its interpretation.
This seems both untenable as a practical outcome and inconsistent with both the statute and governing precedent. Based on my review of reported decisions, contributory infringement has not played a significant role in pharmaceutical patent litigation, and is redundant in view of the availability of an action for induced infringement.
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 November 23, GM announced that it was withdrawing from the litigation. By Margaret Barry and Korey Silverman-Roati.
Long before the opinion was released, universities were already sensing that the use of race in admissions was coming to an end after decades of intense litigation. Yet most believe the fight will continue as schools creatively construct new pathways to accommodate racial discrimination. Taxpayers are not a captive audience.
The opinion acknowledged, “under our interpretation of the relevant statutes a provider has greater remedies against a private health care service plan than it does against a public entity health care service plan.” Ledesma & Meyer Construction Co. ” Horvitz & Levy filed the successful petition for review.
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