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
Protected Class Associational discrimination cases can be brought under various laws. This means that employees cannot suffer adverse actions simply because someone they associate with engaged in legally-protected activity, such as blowing the whistle. Employees who do suffer such actions may have a legal cause of action.
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a primafaciecase for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.
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. This two step analysis was not followed by the trial court in this case. In Reiss v.
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of invalidity and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court’s jury instruction on objective indicia of nonobviousness constituted prejudicial legal error. The case, Inline Plastics Corp. Lacerta Group, LLC , No. 2022-1954 (Fed.
Vidal (No 23-135): This case challenges the “ Fintiv rule” that restricts the initiation of inter partes review in cases where parallel district court litigation is pending. 23-315): This case questions the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of time limits for joining IPR partes. Traxcell Techs.
The court found that Dorel had established a primafaciecase that Cozy’s founder, Dr. Arjuna Rajasingham, “manipulated the PTO into recognizing priority dates to which he was not entitled” and “relied on the advice of his counsel to perpetrate a fraud on the PTO.” quoting Mohawk Indus., Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100 (2009).
This is a significant turning point in the intersection of arbitration and cross-border litigation in India since the remedy of anti-enforcement injunction is rarely granted by judicial authorities across jurisdictions. However, the Delhi High Court’s decision to grant one in this case marks an interesting departure from this reluctance.
In the ensuing Hatch-Waxman litigation, Teva stipulated to infringement but challenged the patent on obviousness and indefiniteness grounds. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s obviousness judgment, finding legal errors at multiple steps of the analysis.
The Chinese Judgment recorded that: ‘[t]he defendant [Yin] failed to attend despite having been legally summoned to attend. Efthrim AsJ considered that the statement in the Chinese Judgment that Yin had ‘been legally summoned to attend’ was enough to defeat the natural justice defence: [2022] VSC 729, [74]–[79].
Premier Nutrition Corporation Judge Bade / Ninth Circuit / June 17, 2020 Case Overview The case revolves around Sonner’s attempt to secure equitable restitution under Californias Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) in a federal court sitting in diversity.
Dickson and Right to Life East Texas moved to dismiss both suits under the Texas Citizens Participation Act, which states that a court “shall dismiss” a legal action based on the defendant’s exercise of the right to free speech, unless “clear and specific evidence” establishes “a primafaciecase for each essential element of the claim in question.”
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