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
ten years ago—at least in part due to longstanding common law rules on champerty, maintenance, [3] and patent law’s relative high risk—today third-party litigation funding (TPLF) [4] undergirds about 30% of all patent litigation, by conservative estimates. [5] Patent assertion finance today is a multibillion-dollar business. [2]
The court also denied the motion by Alabama and 18 other states to bring a case against California and four other states directly in the Supreme Court to block a series of lawsuits against fossil fuel producers, saying that those suits impermissibly sought to dictate interstate energy policy through the aggressive use of state-law tort suits.
They contended that it would seem to follow from Apprendi that a jury must find any facts necessary to support a (nonzero) restitution order, and they suggested that the court should take up a lower courtruling to the contrary. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Oklahoma v. Relisted after the Jan.
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.
Court Rules 
126 
Let's personalize your content