article thumbnail

Doctrinal “dinosaur” or stare decisis? Justices wrestle with patent-law precedent.

SCOTUSBlog

Taking a different approach, Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that the Patent Act does not mention claim preclusion or issue preclusion, but those doctrines nevertheless bar certain arguments in patent litigation. Wolf principally argued that stare decisis justifies maintaining the doctrine. Matthew Wolf argued for Hologic.

article thumbnail

US Supreme Court strikes down Chevron Deference, requiring courts not defer to agency assessments of their mandates

JURIST

Though the court’s decision in Loper may contradict the stare decisi s principle of judicial continuity, the court found that some cases must involve the court “correcting [its] own mistakes.”

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

Patently O

Stare decisis, Latin for “to stand by things decided,” is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments, i.e., precedent, when resolving a case with comparable facts. the Federal Circuit applied stare decisis to a prior validity ruling involving a different patent and a different accused infringer.

article thumbnail

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

Patently O

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. no standing requirement).

article thumbnail

Word of the Month for August 2019: Stare Decisis

Legal Research is Easy

Of course, this brings us to our word of the month: STARE DECISIS. According to Black's Law Dictionary, STARE DECISIS means: Latin: To stand by things decided. The doctrine of precedent, under which a court must follow earlier judicial decisions when the same points arise again in litigation.

article thumbnail

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

SCOTUSBlog

The issue that came to the Supreme Court from that litigation is the one I mentioned above: whether the 12-year statute of limitations is a strict jurisdictional bar, which plainly would put Wilkins out of court, or instead a claims-processing rule, which would leave some opportunity for the trial court to excuse the tardy filing.

Statute 104
article thumbnail

India Supreme Court allows petition of 2002 communal riots victim

JURIST

However, the court has kept open whether other writ petitions filed as public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the remission orders are maintainable for future appropriate cases. Hence, Bano was not obligated to file a writ petition under Article 226 before the Gujarat State High Court.