On April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., v. City of New York in a per curiam decision, holding that a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief against New York...more
4/29/2020
/ Amended Rules ,
Appeals ,
Declaratory Relief ,
Firearm Transportation ,
Gun Laws ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Licensing Rules ,
Local Rules ,
Mootness ,
New York ,
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc et al v Bruen Superintendent of New York State Police et al ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Second Amendment ,
Vacated
On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., holding that a plaintiff alleging trademark infringement under § 1125(a) of the Lanham Act is not required to prove willful...more
4/24/2020
/ § 1125(a) ,
§ 1125(c) ,
Appeals ,
Burden of Proof ,
Charge-Filing Preconditions ,
Compensatory Awards ,
Dilution ,
Lanham Act ,
Lost Profits ,
Remand ,
Remedies ,
Romag Fasteners v Fossil ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Vacated ,
Willful Infringement
On April 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, holding that the Clean Water Act requires a permit for a point source that emits pollutants into navigable waters through groundwater...more
4/24/2020
/ Appeals ,
Clean Water Act ,
Direct Discharge ,
Discharge of Pollutants ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Functional Equivalent ,
Groundwater ,
Hawaii Wildlife Fund v County of Maui ,
Navigable Waters ,
Permits ,
Point Sources ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
Waters of the United States
On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, holding that when the Patent and Trademark Office grants a petition for inter partes review and rejects a contention that the...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian holding that CERCLA does not strip state courts of jurisdiction to hear state-law claims brought by landowners seeking remediation of...more
4/21/2020
/ Approval Requirements ,
Atlantic Richfield Co v Christian ,
CERCLA ,
Clean-Up Costs ,
Contaminated Properties ,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ,
Jurisdiction ,
Land Owners ,
MT Supreme Court ,
Nuisance ,
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Site Remediation ,
State Law Claims ,
Strict Liability ,
Trespass
On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877, holding that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA) lacks a valid constitutional basis to strip the states of their sovereign...more
On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171, holding that the but-for causation standard applies to claims of racial...more
On June 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15, holding that courts should defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations, but only when several constraining...more
6/27/2019
/ Administrative Agencies ,
Ambiguous ,
Appeals ,
Auer Deference ,
Kisor v Wilkie ,
Reasonable Interpretations ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis ,
Vacated ,
Veterans' Benefits
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705, holding that whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2006 order interpreting the...more
6/21/2019
/ Administrative Orders ,
Administrative Procedure ,
Appellate Courts ,
Binding Precedent ,
Dismissals ,
Due Process ,
Exclusive Jurisdiction ,
FCC ,
Hobbs Act ,
Interpretive Rule ,
Judicial Review ,
Legislative Rule ,
PDR Network LLC v Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Set-Asides ,
TCPA ,
Unsolicited Advertisements ,
Unsolicited Faxes ,
Vacated
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471, holding that neither the general federal removal statute nor the removal provision in the Class Action Fairness...more
5/30/2019
/ CAFA ,
Class Action ,
Co-Defendants ,
Counterclaims ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
General Removal Provisions ,
Home Depot USA Inc v Jackson ,
Jurisdiction ,
Remand ,
Removal ,
SCOTUS ,
Third-Party
On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229, holding in a unanimous decision that an invention sold to a third party under a confidentiality agreement...more
1/23/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Assignment of Inventions ,
Confidentiality Agreements ,
Helsinn Healthcare SA v Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc ,
Inventions ,
On-Sale Bar ,
Patent Applications ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Public Use ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 102 ,
Third-Party Relationships
On January 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, holding in an 8-0 opinion that, on a motion to compel arbitration, the court itself must determine whether the exclusion of § 1 of the Federal...more
1/16/2019
/ Appeals ,
Arbitration Agreements ,
Commercial Truck Drivers ,
Employment Contract ,
Exceptions ,
Federal Arbitration Act ,
Independent Contractors ,
Motion to Compel ,
New Prime v Oliveira ,
Question of Arbitrability ,
Reaffirmation ,
SCOTUS
On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Janus v. American Federal of State, County, and Municipal Employees, holding that the First Amendment does not permit states to require public-sector employees to contribute...more
6/28/2018
/ Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Fair Share Contribution ,
First Amendment ,
Janus v AFSCME ,
Non-Union ,
Public Employees ,
Public Sector Unions ,
SCOTUS ,
Stare Decisis ,
Union Dues
On June 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140, holding that the petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that California’s...more
6/27/2018
/ Abortion ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
FACT Act ,
Family Planning Clinics ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra ,
Notice Requirements ,
Reproductive Discrimination ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
Strict Scrutiny Standard ,
Substantial Government Interest
On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Abbott, et al. v. Perez, et al., Nos. 17-586 & 17-626. The Court held that the district court erred when it required the State to show that the 2013 Texas Legislature had "purged...more
On June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Ohio v. American Express, No. 16-1454, holding that American Express’s antisteering rules, which prevent merchants from discouraging customers’ use of Amex cards to...more
6/26/2018
/ American Express ,
Anti-Steering Rules ,
Anticompetitive Agreements ,
Antitrust Provisions ,
Burden of Proof ,
Credit Card Surcharges ,
Merchant Fees ,
Merchants ,
Ohio v American Express ,
Rule-of-Reason Analysis ,
SCOTUS
On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, unanimously holding that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not remove state...more
On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Artis v. District of Columbia, holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance—i.e., to stop the...more
On June 26, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., No. 16-373, holding that the three-year statute of repose in the Securities Act of 1933 cannot...more
On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, holding that, when the government offers a public benefit to organizations that meet specified criteria, the Free Exercise...more
On June 23, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214, holding that, in determining whether a regulatory taking has occurred under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, courts should...more
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court decided BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405, holding that § 56 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) does not address personal jurisdiction and thus limiting the fora in which a...more
On May 30, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1189, holding that a patentee’s sale of a product, whether domestically or abroad, exhausts all of its patent rights in...more
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262, holding that a three-judge district court panel did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for North Carolina’s...more
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, holding that, for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a domestic corporation resides only in...more