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.”

Statute 104
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.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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. Notably, the 2016 patent law case of Cuozzo v.

article thumbnail

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

SCOTUSBlog

1983 — which allows private suits for state and local deprivations of rights secured by federal law—to enforce federal statutes enacted under Congress’ spending clause power. Laws” means federal statutes, including spending clause enactments that “unambiguously” create individual rights. Background.

article thumbnail

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

SCOTUSBlog

Minerva contends that it has a statutory right to challenge invalidity; the statute does not have any textual exceptions for patent assignors. In addition to all of the above, Hologic argues that the court should maintain the doctrine because of stare decisis. A possible middle ground. But a middle ground exists.

article thumbnail

Two death penalty cases and free speech at animal facilities

SCOTUSBlog

Andrus further argues that the Texas court’s decision conflicts with “vertical stare decisis,” the principle that lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions. Intellectual disability and the death penalty. Animal Legal Defense Fund. Issue : Whether Kan.

article thumbnail

Justices to consider scope of “clear and unmistakable error” review of Veterans Affairs decisions

SCOTUSBlog

The relevant statute , regulating disability benefits, provides that “the United States will pay [compensation] to any veteran” who is “disabled” as a result of (1) “personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty,” or (2) “aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.” military veterans.

Statute 107