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 Department of Justice (DOJ) sued Texas and Governor Greg Abbott in his official capacity on Wednesday over a state law that criminalizes illegal entry into the border state from anywhere but a port of entry, exerting state jurisdiction over what is usually a federal matter. Last month, Abbott signed SB 4.
Texas was another instance of a common jurisprudential problem for the justices: how should a modern court, largely devoted to textualism in its statutory interpretation, deal with cases about Native American tribes, which traditionally have depended on historical and contextual understandings only weakly linked to the text of the statute.
Texas presents yet another installment in the decades-long conflict between state gambling regulators and Native American tribes. In 1983, responding to a lower-court decision holding that the transfer of those trust responsibilities violated the Texas Constitution, Texas terminated the trust relationship.
Monolithic”) in the Western District of Texas, alleging Monolithic infringed Bel Power’s patents by selling power modules for use in electronic devices. However, the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Monolith Power Systems, Inc. may have reopened that question. Bel Power Solutions Inc. (“Bel Bel Power”) sued Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Share The Supreme Court on Monday sent a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites back to the lower courts for another look. Texas and Florida passed the laws at the center of the two cases in the wake of Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S.
Hain moved the case to federal court, asserting that the Palmquists had fraudulently included Whole Foods in the case to defeat diversity jurisdiction under a Texasstatute protecting innocent sellers from liability. The justices will be discussing two of them for a second time. First up is The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
The underlying actions were filed by a patent holding company known as Ikorongo Texas LLC against Samsung and LG Electronics. As explained below, the owners of Ikorongo Texas formed the company as an attempt to solidify venue in W.D.Texas and avoid the case being transferred for inconvenient forum. Thus, no proper venue.
Thus, the statute provides a district court with discretion to move venue “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” An oddity of patent litigation jurisprudence is that Section 1404 determinations are not deemed patent-law specific. ” 28 U.S.C.
Reynolds Vapor Company and a group of retailers based in Texas and Mississippi, primarily fielded questions from just two justices, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson a promising sign for his clients. As a practical matter, he asked Suri, why is it inconvenient for the government to litigate in one circuit instead of another?
For those unfamiliar with how cases are assigned in district courts, let’s use the Western District of Texas as an example. The Western District of Texas is a vast district, stretching more than 600 miles across from El Paso (on the western limits of the state) to Waco (which is much nearer to Louisiana than New Mexico).
Ikorongo Texas LLC, et al. Ikorongo Texas LLC holds exclusive rights to a set of patents, but only with respect to use of the inventions in counties within the Western District of Texas. This includes McLennan County, home of Waco Texas and Judge Albright’s court. . § by Dennis Crouch. Samsung Electronics Co.,
For example, in the weeks leading up to the Colloquium, a Texas District Court ruled in Spence v. Fiduciary duties will remain a key legal battleground as competing climate standards advance Debates at the Colloquium also suggest that corporate climate action will continue to be shaped by litigation.
In a recent decision out of the Southern District of Texas, Judge Lee Rosenthal found the patent infringement case brought by VDPP against Volkswagen to qualify for sanctions under the Patent Act 35 U.S.C. § The court also relied upon 28 U.S.C. 1927 and its inherent powers to directly sanction VDPP’s attorney William P. ” Id.
As high-profile police killings persist, many victims have turned to private litigation as a path to justice. While Section 1983 was integral to early civil rights litigation, in the context of police misconduct the statute reinforces the understanding of “individual perpetrators causing individual harm.”.
Under the statute for patent litigation venue, venue is proper in a judicial district if either (1) the defendant is incorporated in the district or (2) the defendant infringes within the district and also has a “regular and established places of business” in the district.
by Dennis Crouch The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for mandamus seeking to overturn a district court order transferring a patent case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The statute at issue 28 U.S.C. In re Haptic, Inc. , 2024-121 (Fed. June 25, 2024). 3d 201 (5th Cir. 3d 1194(Fed.
To create the compact, each state passed statutes and, as New York’s bill of complaint indicates is a constitutional requirement for interstate compacts, Congress consented as well. However, in 2018, New Jersey passed a statute to withdraw from the compact, and on Dec. Texas Entertainment Association, Inc. However, the U.S.
At that time, patent litigation was highly concentrated in the Eastern District of Texas, and the proper venue statute, 28 U.S.C. The pre- TC Heartland nullification of the proper-venue statute (§ 1400(b)) was a but-for cause of the E.D. Texas is a proper venue for Apple; It also seems like it is pretty darn convenient.
Bruen invokes the authority of history but presents a version of the past that is little more than an ideological fantasy, much of it invented by gun-rights advocates and their libertarian allies in the legal academy with the express purpose of bolstering litigation such as Bruen.
The statute indicates that any party to an IPR final-written-decision has a right to appeal. The parties settled the litigation before the IPRs were complete, but agreed that the IPRs could continue. A lot of litigation power is being spent on whether or not the plaintiff’s choice of judge (Judge Albright) will stick.
The Texas Supreme Court will hear arguments in December in Concho Resources v. Samson drilled a well on the disputed 154-acre tract, leading to the litigation. Ellison sued all three for conversion and for payment of amounts due under the division order statute, Texas Natural Resources Code section 91.404. Ellison , No.
Back in 2021, Bel Power sued Monolithic for patent infringement in Waco Texas. Proper venue is rarely a big deal these days in Federal Litigation. Congress amended the venue statutes so that, in most cases, venue rises and falls with personal jurisdiction. by Dennis Crouch. In re Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. 21-cv-00655.
Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Another important rule is the framework for confirming or vacating an arbitration award; Sections 9 and 10 of the statute set out rules for that process, which generally make it easy to get an award confirmed by a court. But in Badgerow v.
5] This is largely attributed to the stability of Delaware corporate law, the predictability of corporate litigation, and the expertise of the Court of Chancery. [6] 13] His decision to move Teslas and SpaceXs incorporation to Texas have reinforced the perception that the state is no longer as business-friendly as it once was. [14]
Sito Mobile (SITO) sued Hulu in the Western District of Texas (Waco), alleging infringement of seven of its patents. The 100 mile and state line rules mean that Judge Albright could not compel a non-party witness to fly from Southern California to Texas in order to testify in court. by Dennis Crouch. In re HULU, LLC ( Fed.
At $150,000, Arizona already has one of the higher homestead exemptions, according to Asset Protection Planners, though eight states including Texas and Florida offer unlimited protection. That would undermine “the protection a debtor has under the current homestead• exemption statute,” Drain wrote in a commentary.
The doctrine at the center of the case is known as the voluntary cessation doctrine – the principle that plaintiffs can continue to litigate their case unless the defendant shows that it cannot simply resume the conduct that prompted the lawsuit after the case is dismissed. The plaintiff in the case, Yonas Fikre, is a U.S. In Corner Post v.
Still, the company regularly argues that it would be too unfair and inconvenient to litigate patent cases in states such as Texas. Like Google, the defendants are typically corporations with national reach who can – and do – litigate anywhere. In a recent decision, Judge Alan Albright (W.D.Tex.) 1404(a).
With this insight in mind, the Study Committee recommended that the ULC “endorse ratification of the Hague Judgments Convention as long as the United States preserves the ability of litigants to seek recognition and enforcement of money judgments rendered in another country under existing state law.
The other was a statute enacted in 2016, which limited third parties — postal workers, election officials, caregivers, family members, or household members — who could collect completed absentee ballots from voters. And it rejected a challenge to the presidential election in Texas v. Litigants then moved to Section 2.
the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of a district court’s inherent authority to investigate potential litigation misconduct. While I am not generally opposed to litigation finance, the Mavexar and IP Edge controversy highlights significant ethical concerns associated with the practice. Canary Connect, Inc. , On appeal, Ms.
As readers of this blog surely know, the Federal Circuit decides venue questions all the time, usually through petitions for writs of mandamus by defendants seeking to escape the Eastern or Western Districts of Texas. Transfer isn’t the only area where we see the Federal Circuit’s choice-of-law rule leaving judges and litigants in the dark.
” Hurdle of Concrete Harm : Although the APA permits an action to compel agency action, the statute typically requires that the plaintiff be “a person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action.” That case is now on appeal. ” 5 U.S.C. Minton , 568 U.S.
In the absence of oversight boards and civil litigation, criminal charges against prosecutors and ethics board disciplinary measures are the only means of incentivizing appropriate prosecutorial actions. The Texas legislature has passed sweeping discovery reform laws, and many jurisdictions are moving toward similar open file discovery rules.
Newsom cited the kidnapping statute but apparently failed to read it or the underlying cases. While there is a fair debate over the policy of relocation by states like Texas and Florida, the effort to use the criminal process as part of that political debate is … well, pathetic.
The Autonomy acquisition turned into a fiasco for HP due to alleged accounting improprieties by Autonomy, resulting in both litigation and a write-down of nearly $8.8 The report offered the example of the Texas court system, which had never held a civil hearing by video before the pandemic, but which conducted 1.1
Broadcasters already upload this information to their public file, and this update merely brings the FCC’s rules in line with the requirements of federal statute and thus has no practical effect on a station’s political file obligations. TV stations in Texas must also file by April 1, as the TV renewal cycle is one year behind radio.
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. In October, the federal district court for the Eastern District of Texas denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Texas to answer the question whether a trial court abridges a defendants Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendants testimony during an overnight recess. It reasoned that loss and miscarriage cover intentional acts, as the statute only qualifies transmission with negligent.
Share The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard the case of a Texas death-row inmate seeking DNA testing for evidence that he believes will clear him. A federal appeals court threw out Rodney Reed’s federal civil rights lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas law governing DNA testing, explaining that Reed had filed his suit too late.
Each month, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (APKS) 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. and non-U.S. If you know of any cases we have missed, please email us at columbiaclimate at gmail dot com.
United States , involving the scope of the federal “identity theft” statute. Abbott , concerning redistricting for the Texas state legislature, and particularly its senate district 10, encompassing portions of Fort Worth. Texas , 21-1601. The Supreme Court continued to work through its backlog of relists. relisted after the Nov.
The Autonomy acquisition turned into a fiasco for HP due to alleged accounting improprieties by Autonomy, resulting in both litigation and a write-down of nearly $8.8 The report offered the example of the Texas court system, which had never held a civil hearing by video before the pandemic, but which conducted 1.1
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