Can a state require a company, as a condition of doing business in the state, to consent to being sued there for any and all claims? In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 599 U.S. __ (2023), the Supreme Court concluded...more
In an important case that could blow the doors open on personal jurisdiction so that corporations can be subject to suit anywhere they do business, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday. In Mallory v. Norfolk...more
For most of us, we’re stuck in the August heat, on delayed European vacations, or hopefully just hanging out at the beach. But for the Court it still was work as usual, including a return trip to the Federal Circuit for the...more
As we’ve written about multiple times, a petition for certiorari from the Federal Circuit’s starkly divided decision in American Axle has been pending at the Supreme Court for some time. Many thought this would be the case...more
Now that we have the Supreme Court’s big decision in Arthrex, which we wrote about here, many of us are wondering what the next steps will look like. We may know sooner rather than later. Today, the Federal Circuit issued a...more
The Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision Monday in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., Nos. 19-1434, -1452, -1458. Although a majority of the Court held that Congress’s statutory scheme violated the Constitution, the...more
6/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
Some of the big news a couple weeks ago was the Supreme Court’s decision to invite the Solicitor General (SG) to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in American Axle, a Section 101 case involving an...more
How close a connection does there need to be between a lawsuit and the defendant’s in-state activities for specific personal jurisdiction to apply? The Supreme Court issued a decision on that issue today in Ford Motor Co. v....more
As many readers know, the Supreme Court just granted a petition for certiorari in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. The case asks the Supreme Court to abolish the doctrine of assignor estoppel. But the Supreme Court...more
The Supreme Court heard roughly an hour of oral argument on Wednesday in a pair of cases against Ford Motor Company raising important questions about the scope of personal jurisdiction. In Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth...more
Maybe it was the end of summer and the start of fall, or the kids (kind of) going back to school. But whatever it was, last week the Court issued only one precedential decision, in a veteran’s benefits case. All said, the...more
9/17/2020
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appeals ,
Appellate Courts ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Follow-On Patent Petitions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Reaffirmation ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Vacated
Despite their repeated efforts to provide guidance to lower courts, the Justices once again find themselves in a familiar position: attempting to clarify the constitutional limits on courts’ power to exercise personal...more
Last week was September Court week, marking the unofficial end of summer for Federal Circuit practitioners. The Court issued a total of 25 decisions, including 8 Rule 36 summary affirmances in cases argued last week, as well...more
9/9/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Blackberry ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Facebook ,
Google ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Joinder ,
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
Brian Matsui, Seth Lloyd, and Samuel Goldstein authored an article for Law360 covering how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has streamlined its docket and moved oral arguments from the courtroom to conference...more
As courts across the country grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Circuit has streamlined its docket and moved oral arguments from the courtroom to conference calling. Early indications suggest that is changing how...more
On the same day that patent challengers breathed a sigh of relief once the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) in Oil States, the Court also threw a monkey wrench into the way IPRs will be...more
After the biggest challenge yet to the Patent and Trademark Office’s popular inter partes review proceedings, the name of the game is largely “same old” for today’s Supreme Court decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v....more
It seems like it happens every spring: Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a state court’s expansive view of personal jurisdiction. In BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, the Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme...more
In its most recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, the U.S. Supreme Court has reiterated the distinction between general personal jurisdiction on the one hand and specific personal jurisdiction on the other.
As to...more
In its most recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has reiterated the distinction between general personal jurisdiction on the one hand and specific personal jurisdiction on the other. As to the former,...more
The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest...more
6/21/2016
/ Administrative Proceedings ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Chevron Deference ,
Claim Construction ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
Final Judgment ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Review ,
USPTO
Here we go again: The United States Supreme Court today decided to review two more intellectual property cases. That makes three IP cases so far for next Term (which begins this October), already equaling the number of IP...more
5/3/2016
/ Cheerleaders ,
Fashion Design ,
Laches ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v First Quality Baby Products ,
SCOTUS ,
Sports Apparel ,
Star Athletica v Varsity Brands ,
Statute of Limitations ,
The Copyright Act
The 2015 Changes to the Federal Rules Matter for Your Patent Case and Tech Business: Getting in the Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher -
It used to be that a complaint for patent infringement would survive a motion to...more
4/22/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Anti-Monopoly ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee ,
FRAND ,
Germany ,
Huawei ,
Injunctions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Japan ,
Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) ,
Judicial Review ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Pleading Standards ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
USPTO ,
Websites ,
ZTE
Not so fast: the United States Supreme Court is set to review the America Invents Act’s (“AIA”) fast-track inter partes review (“IPR”) process. On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed...more
1/21/2016
/ America Invents Act ,
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard ,
Certiorari ,
Cuozzo Speed Technologies ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Rulemaking Process ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l (No. 13-298) to decide “[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions . . . are directed to patent-eligible subject matter...more