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
The US Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge Monday to the appellate courtdecision that struck down Minnesota law prohibiting adults aged 18-20 from obtaining a permit to own guns and carry them in public. ” said Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M.
McGills brief argued that a jurisdictional problem (based on the courtsdecision in Badgerow v. It took Roberts 10 separate questions to elicit that admission! The most important thing I got out of the argument is that the justices seem highly motivated to decide the question presented.
The Supreme Court previously held that the post-removal statute contains an implicit time limit. Davis , a 2001 decision, the court read that provision to prohibit detention beyond six months for noncitizens ordered removed when their removal is not “reasonably foreseeable.” In Zadvydas v. Rodriguez and Johnson v.
HRSA based its opinion on the statute and agency precedents over the last 25 years. Judge Stark found that, although HRSA’s interpretation of the statute was permissible, the Advisory Opinion unjustifiably assumed that Congress imposed this interpretation as a statutory requirement. A decision is expected in the coming months.
As a practical matter, he asked Suri, why is it inconvenient for the government to litigate in one circuit instead of another? Suri told the justices that this was not a question of convenience, but instead about Congresss choice in the statute to delineate where cases can be brought. A decision in the case is expected by summer.
The statute would create a rebuttable presumption of consolidation. The new statute would list factors that a district court should consider when determining whether or not to grant a stay, all the changes would tend to promote stays of the litigation. Expanding the Scope of Inter Partes Review.
The case turns on a 1988 amendment to the Federal Arbitration Act, which added the current Section 16(a) to that statute. Kavanaugh reasoned that when “the question on appeal is whether the case belongs in arbitration or instead in the district court, the entire case is essentially ‘involved in the appeal.’”
That decision distinguishes between types of gambling that a state prohibits outright and types of gambling that a state tolerates subject to regulation. In 1983, responding to a lower-courtdecision holding that the transfer of those trust responsibilities violated the Texas Constitution, Texas terminated the trust relationship.
The 2017 Supreme Courtdecision in TC Heartland gave renewed teeth to the venue statute governing litigation. Although the notice letter is a critical aspect of the Hatch-Waxman process, the Federal Circuit found that the letter was not an “act of infringement” as required by the venue statute.
The case involves the costs of appellate litigation. Under the “American Rule,” the prevailing party in litigation in the United States ordinarily must pay its own attorney’s fees, absent some statute that calls for a different outcome.
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.
In other words, FDA needed to determine whether the initial biosimilar litigation—pre-interchangeable supplemental approval—counts towards the FIE expiration date calculation. Notably, the purpose of the statute seemed to govern much of FDA’s interpretation.
Recent developments have made it even more attractive — for example, the basis for the argument of unconstitutionality of §280E has recently and ably been outlined by the judiciary in three dissenting opinions to a 2019 Tax Courtdecision (For a summary, see: [link] ).
Courts to obtain discovery in order to facilitate foreign litigation; with the pending global litigation between Eli Lilly and Novartis serving as our key example. The standard today is that prior to trial the litigating parties will share “mutual knowledge of all relevant facts.” ” Hickman v.
The argument revealed a bench deeply skeptical of the uncertainty maritime insurance contracts would face under a lower-courtdecision limiting the enforcement of choice-of-law clauses in those contracts. Raiders Retreat Realty surprised anybody familiar with last fall’s oral argument.
As Congress continued to legislatively develop the statute, courts also added common law nuance, including the law of patent eligibility. Since 2012, almost 2,000 courtdecisions have referenced these cases along with 8,000+ PTAB decisions. Constitution authorizes Congress to legislatively create a patent system.
Accused infringers also prefer IPRs because they effectively bifurcate the trial between validity and infringement, with the IPR validity questions being decided first while infringement litigation is stayed. The result is that the IPRs are also a low risk option for accused infringers since no liability attaches from that decision.
The first question — if the patentee is involved in concurrent district court infringement litigation, at what step is the patent no longer enforceable? The affirmed PTAB decision found the claim invalid with a preponderance of the evidence. And yet, fudging the rules in a way that undermines due process is troubling.
In answering that question, the Supreme Court applied its recently minted, two-step methodology for assessing the extraterritorial reach of U.S. statutes generally. European Community , step one requires a court to decide whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted by a clear indication from Congress.
A federal district court in Florida tossed their paperwork, given the requirement in the federal drug statute that third-party petitions to reclaim seized assets “be signed by the Petitioner under penalty of perjury.” The two business owners, the lower court ruled, must forfeit the $9,000.
. § 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.
It is an appeal from one of the many cases pending before Judge Polster in the Northern District of Ohio as part of the National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The Panel, it turns out, thought Ohio law was not quite as clear as the parties did and certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court. 22-3750/3751/3753/3841/3843/3844.
The first question in the Court’s analysis was whether the claim that the SEC brought is a “suit at common law,” i.e., if the case is legal in nature. That the claim rested on a federal statute and required the SEC to establish facts that do not match any cause of action known to the common law in 1791 was not dispositive.
Supreme Court held that the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a claim-processing rule rather than a bright-line rule that constrains a court’s jurisdiction. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the Court. In Wilkins v. United States , 598 U.S. _ (2023), the U.S. Fort Bend County v. Davis , 587 U.S.
There are state courts and federal courts, state statutes and federal statutes, state common law and federal common law. This feeling of pity is compounded when I imagine this same lawyer trying to advise her client as to whether a choice-of-court clause will be enforced by a court in the United States.
In reaching its decision, the Court explained that equitable tolling “effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress” when a litigant diligently pursues his rights but extraordinary circumstances prevent him from bringing a timely action. It also noted that pursuant to Irwin v.
Arizona is one of the most significant Supreme Courtdecisions in American criminal procedure. Dickerson put the kibosh on an unconstitutional federal statute that, effectively, sought to overrule Miranda. Share Miranda v. 3) Goodbye, Miranda ? 4) Proximate cause says what?
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.
The Nevada Supreme Court upheld a 2021 state ban on ghost guns Thursday, overturning a lower-courtdecision that declared the law unconstitutional for being vague. Stiglich authored the opinion of the court. That year, a US District Court also upheld the law, ruling that it did not violate the Second Amendment.
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.
In 2021, the District Court ruled that the Berkeley ordinance was not preempted by EPCA , rejecting the notion that EPCA preempts local ordinances that do “not facially address any of those [energy conservation or energy use] standards.” Under EPCA, the U.S. Clean Air Act, not EPCA.
9] This approach is that a Nigerian court cannot assume jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in one State, or another foreign country. There is no provision of the Nigerian constitution that states that a court’s jurisdiction is limited to matters that occur within its territory. This is a discussion for another day. [1]
That is curious because just a week ago, many of these same figures went ballistic when I noted that we have little evidence of a judicial philosophy in past decisions by Judge Jackson and it would be one of the key issues in her confirmation hearings. ’” ( 3:45 ) It is not clear if we can now take Jackson’s word on the subject.
’ This Case is highly significant, because it extensively addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Kenya and the principles to be considered by the Kenyan Courts. This decision thus did not only tackle orders of local investigation but concluded the process for all four commission orders as highlighted above.
This case reached the Florida Supreme Court when it was certified by the United State Court of Appeals which was reviewing a District Courtdecision reaching the same conclusion as did the Florida Supreme Court – that there was no performance right under state law for pre-1972 sound recordings (see our summary of the District Courtdecision here ).
In reaching this decision, the Court looked at the language of the California statute dealing with pre-1972 sound recordings. It is important to recognize that this is a trial courtdecision by a Federal Court interpreting California law. The Autumn of Copyright had begun!
California Commerce Club : Does California’s test for determining whether a party has waived its right to compel arbitration by engaging in litigation remain valid after the United States Supreme Courtdecision in Morgan v. The court granted review in August 2022. Sundance, Inc. 2022) _ U.S. _ [142 S.Ct. 1901 et seq.;
The Court pointed out that its task was not to determine whether the ability of the FTC to substitute §13(b) for the administrative procedure in §5 and consumer redress under §19 was desirable, but rather to answer a “more purely legal question,” Slip Op. It did that by focusing on the text of the statute. 58 Food and Drug L.J.
If that is so, as is indeed it is, how much less can parties by their private acts remove the jurisdiction properly and legally vested in our Courts ? Sixth, Nigeria should consider ratifying the Hague Choice of Court Convention , 2005. The recent Court of Appeal’s decision in A.B.U. Conclusion.
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.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has begun 2023 with its first precedential patent decision in DexCom, Inc. In an opinion by Judge Stoll, the court affirmed a district courtdecision denying DexCom’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., 2023-1795 (Fed. January 3, 2024).
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.
Have you heard about the big Supreme Courtdecision that came down a couple weeks ago? For roughly 40 years, administrative law in the United States has adhered to the Chevron doctrine, so named for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Chevron U.S.A., Last month, the Supreme Court’s holding in Loper Bright Enterprises v.
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.
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