Remove Court Remove Stare Decisis Remove Statute
article thumbnail

Patent Puzzles after the Supreme Court’s 2024 Administrative Law Cases: Stare Decisis, Rulemaking, and Discretion

Patently O

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 stare decisis and the Court’s overruling of Chevron deference (i.e. no standing requirement).

article thumbnail

Federal Circuit Gives Stare Decisis Effect to a Judgment of Claim Validity

Patently O

University of Illinois Foundation (1971), the Supreme Court held that a judgment of invalidity in a suit against one infringer accrues to the benefit of any other accused infringer unless the patent owner shows that he did not have a fair opportunity procedurally, substantively and evidentially to pursue his patent claim the first time.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

A quiet bench on the Quiet Title Act: Justices hold muted debate on statute of limitations

SCOTUSBlog

Those who spoke extensively, however, seem ready to reject the government’s argument that the statute of limitations at issue here is a strict jurisdictional rule, as opposed to a “mere” claims-processing rule, which could be waived in an appropriate case. It has stare decisis effect.” Commissioner.

Statute 102
article thumbnail

Divided Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron in Landmark Decision

Constitutional Law Reporter

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.”

article thumbnail

In family’s lawsuit against public nursing home, court revisits private rights of action and the spending clause

SCOTUSBlog

Talevski , to be argued Tuesday, returns the court to the question of when federal law is subject to private enforcement. The court will consider whether to overrule a line of precedent and to hold that private individuals cannot use 42 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the action, but the U.S. Arguments of HHC.

article thumbnail

A few initial thoughts on Loper and the end of Chevron Deference

Patently O

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.

article thumbnail

Court to decide whether an inventor may challenge the validity of the patent on the inventor’s own invention

SCOTUSBlog

Share This Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Minerva Surgical Inc. Federal courts have applied this doctrine since 1880, and the Supreme Court implicitly approved of the doctrine in 1924 in Westinghouse Electric. Applying the doctrine of assignor estoppel, however, both the district court and the U.S.