Now that the dust has settled following the Supreme Court’s overhaul of administrative law through three late-term decisions, Akin litigators and policy advisors offer the most significant takeaways for businesses and...more
7/31/2024
/ CFTC ,
Chevron Deference ,
Chevron v NRDC ,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Department of Transportation (DOT) ,
Enforcement ,
FERC ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo ,
OSHA ,
Regulatory Agencies ,
SCOTUS ,
SEC v Jarkesy ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Settlement ,
Statutory Interpretation
On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court held 6-3 in Snyder v. United States that a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), does not criminalize “gratuities” to state and local officials—i.e., payments made to those...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision in the case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165. Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that “pure...more
The Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., which considered whether Administrative Patent Judges’ (APJs) authority to issue decisions in inter partes reviews on behalf of the executive branch is...more
6/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Director of the USPTO ,
Inferior Officers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc
- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, that the PTAB’s application of the one-year time limit for petitions for inter partes review, set out in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), is not subject to...more
4/23/2020
/ § 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
• The Supreme Court in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. held 7-2 that because ION exported components of WesternGeco’s patented system in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2), WesternGeco was entitled to recover damages...more
6/26/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) ,
35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Appeals ,
Damages ,
Domestic Injury ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Sales ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
WesternGeco LLC v Ion Geophysical Corporation
• The Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy ruled 7-2 that cancellation of patent claims in an inter partes review does not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
• In SAS...more
5/1/2018
/ America Invents Act ,
Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Oil States Energy Services v Greene's Energy Group ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Public Rights Doctrine ,
SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu ,
SCOTUS ,
Seventh Amendment ,
USPTO
• The Supreme Court in Jesner v. Arab Bank ruled 5-4 that suits against foreign corporations under the ATS are barred, answering a question left unresolved in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
• Although the decision...more
In a highly anticipated opinion significantly narrowing the first prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC unanimously held that a domestic...more
5/25/2017
/ Forum Selection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Primary Residence ,
Principal Place of Business ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue