What is the Jurisdictional Significance of Extraterritoriality? - Three Irreconcilable Federal Court Decisions
|
|
- Easter Greer
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 What is the Jurisdictional Significance of Extraterritoriality? - Three Irreconcilable Federal Court Decisions Article Contributed by: Shorge Sato, Jenner and Block LLP Imagine the following hypothetical: your client, a foreign company, is being sued in an American federal court for a violation of an American federal law for its entirely foreign conduct. You research the federal statute and, as you suspected, it does not apply to such foreign conduct unless such conduct caused a direct and substantial effect inside the United States. Although the complaint alleges such an effect, its language is vague and forward-looking, clearly worded to manufacture such a jurisdictional predicate where (you are pretty sure) none, in fact, exists. Should you move to have a federal court dismiss the complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction? Will the court allow you to engage in expedited jurisdictional discovery in support of a preliminary evidentiary hearing on the threshold question of its subject-matter jurisdiction to overcome the thin allegations in the pleading? Who decides, and under what standard? The disparate conclusions reached in three recent federal Courts of Appeals decisions shows that federal courts lack a principled framework for determining the scope of their own authority when addressing the question of extraterritorial application of domestic laws. Three Cases In United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chemical Companies, 322 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2003) (en banc), the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an antitrust action based on predominantly foreign conduct, holding that the question of whether the Sherman Act applied to such a case was a prima facie matter of federal subjectmatter jurisdiction. The Court upheld the district court's findings as not clearly erroneous, based on the district court's review of thousands of pages of evidentiary materials at a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court was allowed on this motion to weigh the facts, which it did in finding a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. However, in Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Federal Circuit held that facts tending to show that allegedly infringing conduct did not occur in the United States were effectively irrelevant to a federal court's determination of its own subject matter jurisdiction over an otherwise wellpleaded Patent Act complaint. Accordingly, there was no need for a preliminary hearing on subject-matter jurisdiction, unless the facts would show that a jurisdictional allegation was wholly insubstantial and frivolous. Because the question of extraterritoriality was simply an element of the patent infringement claim, and not a prima facie matter of subject-matter jurisdiction, resolution of the question would be a decision on the merits for the trier of facts.
2 In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit held that the district court properly dismissed a Securities Exchange Act suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where the action was brought by foreign plaintiffs against a foreign issuer of securities based on securities transactions in a foreign country. The Second Circuit stated that [d]etermining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry and that a claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it. The Court further stated that [a] plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists, and that the district court may consider evidence outside the pleadings. Although the Second Circuit in Morrison appeared to follow the approach of the Seventh Circuit in United Phosphorus, there is one notable distinction between the Sherman Act and the Securities Exchange Act: whereas the express language of the Sherman Act contains a limitation that the act shall not apply to certain extraterritorial conduct unless a direct and substantial effect on American consumers is shown, 1 the Securities Exchange Act is silent as to its extraterritorial application. 2 Federal courts rely upon a common law presumption against extraterritoriality in construing the Securities Exchange Act, and engage in a binary inquiry which asks (1) whether the wrongful conduct occurred in the United States, and (2) whether the wrongful conduct had a substantial effect in the United States or upon United States citizens. 3 This distinction is important when compared to the express language of the Patent Act, which applies to anyone who, without authority, makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention within the United States The Federal Circuit in Litecubes found this express language to be an insufficient expression of Congress' intent to limit the subject matter jurisdiction of federal courts over allegedly extraterritorial infringement. It is difficult, however, to reconcile these three cases by simply comparing the statutory language. Although, arguably, the Sherman Act's shall not apply language appears to express a stronger Congressional intent to divest subjectmatter jurisdiction from federal courts as compared to the within the United States language of the Patent Act, it would be incongruous to read a stronger Congressional intent to divest subject matter jurisdiction in the Securities Exchange Act, which is completely silent about the issue, than from the express language of the Patent Act. Does Arbaugh v. Y&H Corporation Defeat the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality? The divergent outcomes between Litecubes and United Phosphorous can be reconciled somewhat when one reviews the rationale of the Litecubes decision. The Federal Circuit extended the holding of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Arbaugh v. Y & H Corporation, 546 U.S. 500 (2006), rendered after United Phosphorous, which narrowly construed the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction, and applied Arbaugh against the presumption against extraterritoriality. Noting the profligate overuse of the term jurisdiction as the basis for a dismissal of federal claims, the Supreme Court in Arbaugh created a readily administrable
3 bright line to determine when the failure to meet a statutory element deprives a court of subject-matter jurisdiction: If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute's scope counts as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character. However, Arbaugh was a Title VII case involving whether the defendant employed a sufficient number of employees to trigger the act. 5 The Litecubes decision took the step of applying the bright-line rule of Arbaugh to the context of extraterritorial application of the Patent Act. The question then arises whether this step should be taken in the context of all federal laws the Litecubes decision was expansive in its holding and not limited to the Patent Act. If the reasoning of Litecubes was extended to the context of the Sherman Act, for example, foreign parties would not be able to seek dismissal of antitrust claims alleging a domestic effect on subject matter grounds, because the Sherman Act does not expressly state that the limitation on extraterritorial application is jurisdictional. There would be no separate phase of jurisdictional discovery in such cases, unless the allegation of domestic effect is wholly frivolous. There is no way to easily reconcile the outcome of Morrison with the reasoning of Litecubes, unless one distinguishes the field of securities litigation as sui generis. The history of the presumption against extraterritoriality is replete with instances where courts have deferred to the longstanding principle of American Law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. 6 The notion that the Supreme Court intended its bright-line rule in Arbaugh to overturn nearly a century of precedent supporting the default presumption against extraterritoriality is highly questionable. There are strong policy reasons why questions of extraterritorial application of American laws deserve threshold determinations. In United Phosphorous, the Seventh Circuit acknowledged the purity of an argument that under 28 U.S.C a federal court could assert subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a well-pleaded complaint, but concluded nothing is quite that simple. The majority noted that other courts of appeals treated the as setting a jurisdictional limit on the Sherman Act and that the.the majority noted the good policy reasons that warranted treatment of the limitations under Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (which amended the Sherman Act to clarify its extraterritorial reach) as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction. Similarly, in Morrison, when the Second Circuit described the extraterritoriality test in the securities context as allowing subject matter jurisdiction only if the defendant's conduct in the United States was more than merely preparatory to the fraud, and particular acts or culpable failures to act within the United States directly caused losses to foreign investors abroad. The Court acknowledged the presumption against extraterritoriality, stating we are an American court, not the world's court,
4 and we cannot and should not expend our resources resolving cases that do not affect Americans or involve fraud emanating from America. 7 Squaring the Circle: How to Reconcile the Different Approaches to Extraterritoriality It is possible that each federal law should be reviewed on its own terms as to whether limitations on its extraterritorial reach constitute jurisdictional limitations or are merely elements of a claim. This would create considerable uncertainty, however, for foreign entities with some connection to the United States market. If a foreign defendant were sued for violations of the Patent Act and the Sherman Act arising out of the same conduct, for instance, a federal court might face a dilemma as to how to resolve a threshold challenge to its power to adjudicate the dispute. There must be some default rule, or consistent process for ascertaining the default rule. One could argue that Litecubes should be limited to the Patent Act. The territorial limitation in Litecubes only applies to actions for direct patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). However, there is nothing in the scheme of the Patent Act that limits its application to only domestic conduct or effects. 8 It is also possible that the Litecubes decision is wrong. The Federal Circuit relied upon a distinction contained in Section 401 of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States between a legislature's jurisdiction to prescribe and a court's jurisdiction to adjudicate. and equated the true question of subject-matter jurisdiction with the international law concept of territorial limitations on the jurisdiction to prescribe. However, Section 401 of the Restatement expressly disclaims any equivalence between the concept of jurisdiction to prescribe and subject-matter jurisdiction. In fact, the Restatement also disclaims any distinction between the concept of subject-matter jurisdiction and a court's jurisdiction to adjudicate. To equate a court's power to adjudicate a matter, or its subject matter jurisdiction, with Congress's power to legislate over the matter, turns the notion that Article III courts are courts of limited jurisdiction on its head. 9 Legal commentators have suggested that the very dichotomy between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional rules is false, and a more nuanced approach is appropriate. Even if the presumption against extraterritoriality were technically a non-jurisdictional rule, federal courts would still retain the authority to enforce the presumption against extraterritoriality as a quasi-jurisdictional threshold matter, similar to their treatment of certain non-jurisdictional, yet mandatory, claimsprocessing rules. The problem with this approach, however, is that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) does not include a motion to dismiss on quasi-jurisdictional grounds as a defense that may be presented by a motion. While filing a motion to dismiss on the alternative ground of improper venue may provide legal cover for a sympathetic district court, such venue objections can be difficult to maintain, especially for global corporate defendants who do business everywhere. If your foreign client is willing to be aggressive, move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and, if the facts allow, for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), and seek preliminary discovery and a hearing under Rule 12(i).
5 Even if the motion fails for technical reasons, you have made your point to the court, and the groundwork is hopefully laid for a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment. Conclusion The evolution of federal subject matter jurisdiction has created a conundrum in federal courts of appeals: as the Supreme Court narrows the concept of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, what remains of the traditional presumption against extraterritoriality? This is an academic question for which there is no easy answer. However, the practitioner wonders, what do I tell my foreign client? Congress or the federal courts must definitively resolve the issue. A single rule any rule, really would be superior to the present situation, where different courts treat the same question of extraterritoriality in different ways under different statutes. Shorge K. Sato is an associate attorney at Jenner & Block LLP in Chicago. Mr. Sato would like to acknowledge and express his appreciation for the assistance of Jeff Koppy in preparing this article. The views expressed in this article are not to be attributed to Jenner & Block or its clients. 1 See the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. 6a (1982). 2 Morrison, 547 F.3d at 170. In a footnote, the Second Circuit urged that this significant omission receive the appropriate attention from Congress and the SEC. Id. at 170 n Morrison, 547 F.3d at Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 271 (2008) (emphasis added). 5 The Supreme Court in Arbaugh provided three reasons why the designation of a particular element or fact as pertaining to subject-matter jurisdiction matters: first, federal courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party. Thus, the question of subject-matter jurisdiction can never be forfeited or waived, and in fact, could be brought at any time including in a collateral proceeding. Second, in some instances, if subject-matter jurisdiction turns on contested facts, the trial judge may be authorized to review the evidence and resolve the dispute on her own. By contrast, if the issue merely pertains to the satisfaction of an essential element of a claim..., the jury is the proper trier of contested facts. Third, when a federal court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Conversely, if a dispute matter only pertains to an element of a claim, the court generally retains discretion to exercise supplemental jurisdiction... over pendent state law claims. 6 Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 204 (1993) (quoting EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Company, 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991) and Foley Brothers, Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949)). See also United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F.2d 416, 443 (2d Cir. 1945) (Hand, J.) ( We should not impute to Congress an intent to punish all whom its courts can catch, for conduct that has no consequences in the United States. ); American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356 (1909) (Holmes, J.) (describing an almost universal rule that the character of an act as lawful of unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done. )
6 7 A fair argument could also be made in the context of the Securities Act that the bright-line rule of Arbaugh should not apply to certain extraterritorial securities claims. However, this argument would be weakened by the fact that, unlike the Sherman Act as amended, Congress has yet to provide any express limitation on the extraterritorial reach of that statute. 8 or instance, under the doctrine of indirect infringement, the Patent Act could potentially reach conduct which occurs abroad but has domestic effects. Thus, viewing the Litecubes decision through the scheme of the Patent Act, its holding could possibly be narrower than its broad language. Still, on its face, the Litecubes decision is written broadly: the Federal Circuit consider[ed] whether there is something unique about a limitation that determines the extraterritorial scope of a statute that converts what would otherwise be a factual element of the claim into a restriction on the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts and conclud[ed] that there is not. 9 See, e.g., Friends of Earth v. EPA, 333 F.3d 184, 187 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-424 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RODNEY CLASS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationJune 15, MEMORANDUM FOR: All FHEO HUB Directors and Enforcement Centers All Field Assistant General Counsels
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20410-2000 June 15, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR: All FHEO HUB Directors and Enforcement Centers All Field Assistant General Counsels FROM: Gail
More informationUnited States Supreme Court Limits Investor Suits for Misleading Statements of Opinion
March 25, 2015 United States Supreme Court Limits Investor Suits for Misleading Statements of Opinion The United States Supreme Court issued a decision yesterday that resolves a split in the federal courts
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationWarner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.:
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.: Apt Reconciliation of Supreme Court Precedent, and Reasoned Instruction to a Trusted Federal Circuit 1997 by Charles W. Shifley and Lance Johnson On March
More informationInsurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Insurers: New Tools To Remove CAFA Cases To Fed. Court
More informationTHE FTAIA IN ITS PROPER PLACE: MERITS, JURISDICTION, AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN MINN-CHEM, INC. V. AGRIUM INC.
THE FTAIA IN ITS PROPER PLACE: MERITS, JURISDICTION, AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN MINN-CHEM, INC. V. AGRIUM INC. DONALD R. CAPLAN Cite as: Donald R. Caplan, The FTAIA in Its Proper Place: Merits, Jurisdiction,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. Plaintiff, Case No. 17-CR-124
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 17-CR-124 MARCUS HUTCHINS, Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT (IMPROPER
More informationInternational Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now
International Prosecution Strategy after Therasense: What You Need to Know Now Shawn Gorman and Christopher Swickhamer, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. I. Introduction The Plague of Inequitable Conduct Allegations
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department Securities Litigation and Professional Liability Practice
Number 1312 April 4, 2012 Client Alert While the Second Circuit s formulation answers some questions about what transactions fall within the scope of Section 10(b), it also raises a host of new questions
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN
THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN June 20, 2002 On May 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its longawaited decision in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 1 vacating the landmark
More informationIntellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims
Intellectual Ventures Wins Summary Judgment to Defeat Capital One s Antitrust Counterclaims News from the State Bar of California Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section From the January 2018 E-Brief David
More informationMBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions
MBE Civil Procedure Sample Test Questions The National Conference of Bar Examiners provides these Civil Procedure sample questions as an educational tool for candidates seeking admission to the bar within
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 14 8003 MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC, v. Plaintiff Appellant, AU OPTRONICS CORP., et al., Defendants Appellees. Petition for Leave to Take an
More informationThe NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO
The NYIPLA Report: Recent Developments in Patent Law at the U.S. Supreme Court: OIL STATES, SAS INSTITUTE, and WESTERNGECO Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Jung S. Hahm, David Goldberg, Christopher Lisiewski
More informationPost-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Post-EBay: Permanent Injunctions, Future Damages
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , VARDON GOLF COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1557, -1651 VARDON GOLF COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KARSTEN MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Defendant-Cross Appellant. Michael P. Mazza,
More informationApril 30, The Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law (the Sections ) of the American
COMMENTS OF THE ABA SECTIONS OF ANTITRUST LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION STAFF S WORKING DOCUMENT: TOWARDS A COHERENT EUROPEAN APPROACH TO COLLECTIVE REDRESS April 30, 2011 The views
More informationBRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE PATRICIA HAIGHT AND IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
NO. 08-660 IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. IRWIN EISENSTEIN Petitioner, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, Respondents. On a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationThe Supreme Court Decision in Empagran
The Supreme Court Decision On June 14, 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated opinion in Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. v. Empagran S.A, 2004 WL 1300131 (2004). This closely watched
More informationIncreased Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements: Recent Cases in E.D. of PA and 2nd Circuit Suggest Change May Be Ahead for Pharma Clients
Increased Scrutiny of Reverse Payment Settlements: Recent Cases in E.D. of PA and 2nd Circuit Suggest Change May Be Ahead for Pharma Clients By Francis P. Newell and Jonathan M. Grossman Special to the
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationNo IN THE. PROMEGA CORPORATION, Respondent.
No. 14-1538 IN THE LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ET AL., Petitioners, PROMEGA CORPORATION, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NTP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
Case 1:06-cv-00949 Document 121 Filed 12/13/2007 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION G.M. SIGN, INC., Plaintiff, vs. 06 C 949 FRANKLIN BANK, S.S.B.,
More informationNote on the Cancellation of Refugee Status
Note on the Cancellation of Refugee Status Contents Page I. INTRODUCTION 2 II. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES 3 A. General considerations 3 B. General legal principles 3 C. Opening cancellation
More informationMens Rea Defect Overturns 15 Year Enhancement
Mens Rea Defect Overturns 15 Year Enhancement Felony Urination with Intent Three Strikes Yer Out Darryl Jones came to Spokane, Washington in Spring, 1991 to help a friend move. A police officer observed
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationMicrosoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No )
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No. 10-290) What Will Be the Evidentiary Standard(s) for Proving Patent Invalidity in Future Court Cases? March 2011 COPYRIGHT 2011. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, HOLMES and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
TWILLADEAN CINK, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit November 27, 2015 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellant, v.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1646 LITECUBES, LLC, and CARL R. VANDERSCHUIT, v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, NORTHERN LIGHT PRODUCTS, INC. (doing business as GlowProducts.com), Defendant-Appellant.
More informationInfringement Assertions In The New World Order
Infringement Assertions In The New World Order IP Law360, October 17, 2007, Guest Column Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Michael J. Kasdan Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 The recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit
More informationNinth Circuit Holds That Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires a Showing of Mere Negligence, Not Scienter
Ninth Circuit Holds That Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act Requires a Showing of Mere Negligence, Not Scienter May 8, 2018 In Varjabedian v. Emulex, the Ninth Circuit recently held that plaintiffs bringing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-503-DJH-CHL
United States of America v. Hargrove et al Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-503-DJH-CHL
More informationThe patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
Question Q217 National Group: United States Title: The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness Contributors: Marc V. Richards Chair Alan Kasper Drew Meunier Joshua Goldberg Dan Altman
More informationCase: 5:10-cv SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-02691-SL Doc #: 20 Filed: 07/15/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 626 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION HUGUES GREGO, et al., CASE NO. 5:10CV2691 PLAINTIFFS, JUDGE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit DAVID HALPERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PERITEC BIOSCIENCES, LTD., PERITEC BIOSCIENCES, RAJESH K. KHOSLA,
More informationPATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.
PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will
More informationThe Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.
Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 17 January 2000 The Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc. C. Douglass Thomas Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/chtlj
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Civ. No. 15-525-SLR/SRF ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. and ALCON RESEARCH, LTD., Defendants. MEMORANDUM
More informationSERVICE OF PROCESS AND THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD : THE IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC MEANS ON THE OPERATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS
SERVICE OF PROCESS AND THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD : THE IMPACT OF ELECTRONIC MEANS ON THE OPERATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTIONS 2 nd November 2015 What s coming next? Critical Challenges Facing the Evidence
More informationSupreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement
Supreme Court Upholds Award of Foreign Lost Profits for U.S. Patent Infringement Courts May Award Foreign Lost Profits Where Infringement Is Based on the Export of Components of Patented Invention Under
More informationPUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit April 6, 2018 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff -
More informationCase 2:12-cv DN Document 12 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:12-cv-00076-DN Document 12 Filed 11/19/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION R. WAYNE KLEIN, the Court-Appointed Receiver of U.S. Ventures,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BLUE RHINO GLOBAL SOURCING, INC. Plaintiff, v. 1:17CV69 BEST CHOICE PRODUCTS a/k/a SKY BILLIARDS, INC., Defendant. ORDER Plaintiff,
More informationThe Edge M&G s Intellectual Property White Paper
Supreme Court Restores Old Induced Patent Infringement Standard Requiring a Single Direct Infringer: The Court s Decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. In Limelight Networks,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-05448-EDL Document 26 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION : : RICKY R. FRANKLIN, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CIVIL
More informationcv. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
09-0905-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ARISTA RECORDS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ATLANTIC RECORDING CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, BMG MUSIC, a New York
More informationPatent Exhaustion and Implied Licenses: Important Recent Developments in the Wake of Quanta v. LG Electronics
Patent Exhaustion and Implied Licenses: Important Recent Developments in the Wake of Quanta v. LG Electronics Rufus Pichler 8/4/2009 Intellectual Property Litigation Client Alert A little more than a year
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION N2 SELECT, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. No. 4:18-CV-00001-DGK N2 GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY * COMMISSION * Plaintiff * vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. MJG-02-3192 * PAUL HALL CENTER FOR MARITIME TRAINING AND EDUCATION,
More informationNos , , , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 12-10492 09/04/2014 ID: 9229254 DktEntry: 103 Page: 1 of 20 Nos. 12-10492, 12-10493, 12-10500, 12-10514 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOAO BOCK TRANSACTION SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendant. Civ. No. 12-1138-SLR MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. Patent No. 6,125,371 PETITIONER S REQUEST
More informationFiling an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12
ADVISORY LITIGATION PRIVATE EQUITY CONVERGENT Filing an Answer to the Complaint or Moving to Dismiss under Rule 12 Michael Stegawski michael@cla-law.com 800.750.9861 x101 This memorandum is provided for
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN VOCALTAG LTD. and SCR ENGINEERS LTD., v. Plaintiffs, AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V., OPINION & ORDER 13-cv-612-jdp Defendant. This is
More informationMorrison's Effects Test
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2011 Morrison's Effects Test William S. Dodge UC Hastings College of the Law, dodgew@uchastings.edu
More informationFordham Urban Law Journal
Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Number 3 Article 10 1976 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act of 1972- Jurisdiction to Review Effluent Limitation Regulations Promulgated
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1395 HEATHER A. DAVIS, v. BROUSE MCDOWELL, L.P.A. and DANIEL A. THOMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendants-Appellees. Steven D. Bell, Steven D.
More information2010 Winston & Strawn LLP
Class Action Litigation: The Facts Really Do Matter Brought to you by Winston & Strawn LLP s Litigation Practice Group Today s elunch Presenters Stephen Smerek Litigation Los Angeles SSmerek@winston.com
More informationHow Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions
How Wal-Mart v. Dukes Affects Securities-Fraud Class Actions By Robert H. Bell and Thomas G. Haskins Jr. July 18, 2012 District courts and circuit courts continue to grapple with the full import of the
More informationDIRECT PURCHASERS STANDING TO SUE FOR WALKER PROCESS FRAUD IN RE: DDAVP DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION
DIRECT PURCHASERS STANDING TO SUE FOR WALKER PROCESS FRAUD IN RE: DDAVP DIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION Rick Duncan Denise Kettleberger Melina Williams Faegre & Benson, LLP Minneapolis, Minnesota
More informationBest Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct
PRESENTATION TITLE Best Practices Patent Prosecution and Accusations of Inequitable Conduct David Hall, Counsel dhall@kilpatricktownsend.com Megan Chung, Senior Associate mchung@kilpatricktownsend.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION HUGH JARRATT and JARRATT INDUSTRIES, LLC PLAINTIFFS v. No. 5:16-CV-05302 AMAZON.COM, INC. DEFENDANT OPINION AND ORDER
More informationREMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT. Seminar Presentation Rob Foos
REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT Seminar Presentation Rob Foos Attorney Strategy o The removal of cases from state to federal courts cannot be found in the Constitution of the United States; it is purely statutory
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1526, -1527, -1551 DOOR-MASTER CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, YORKTOWNE, INC., and Defendant-Appellant, CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES,
More informationExpanding DCHRA Beyond DC Employment
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Expanding DCHRA Beyond DC Employment Law360,
More informationFORM 4. RULE 26(f) REPORT (PATENT CASES) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
FORM 4. RULE 26(f REPORT (PATENT CASES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Name of Plaintiff CIVIL FILE NO. Plaintiff, v. RULE 26(f REPORT (PATENT CASES Name of Defendant Defendant. The
More informationCase 1:08-cv ENV -RLM Document 128 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 5. December 10, 2009
Case 1:08-cv-04446-ENV -RLM Document 128 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 5 Ronald D. Coleman Partner rcoleman@goetzfitz.com BY ECF United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East
More informationGrasping for a Hold on Ascertainability : The Implicit Requirement for Class Certification and its Evolving Application
26 August 2015 Practice Groups: Financial Institutions and Services Litigation Commercial Disputes Consumer Financial Services Class Action Defense Global Government Solutions Grasping for a Hold on Ascertainability
More informationSuccessfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO. Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept.
Successfully Defending Patents In Inter Partes Reexamination And Inter Partes Review Proceedings Before the USPTO Matthew A. Smith 1 Sept. 15, 2012 USPTO inter partes proceedings are not healthy for patents.
More informationThe America Invents Act : What You Need to Know. September 28, 2011
The America Invents Act : What You Need to Know September 28, 2011 Presented by John B. Pegram J. Peter Fasse 2 The America Invents Act (AIA) Enacted September 16, 2011 3 References: AIA = America Invents
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION
Donaldson et al v. GMAC Mortgage LLC et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ANTHONY DONALDSON and WANDA DONALDSON, individually and on behalf
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 12-CV-5162 ORDER
Case 5:12-cv-05162-SOH Document 146 Filed 09/26/14 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2456 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
More informationThe Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape
The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016
More informationCase 6:16-cv PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066
Case 6:16-cv-00366-PGB-KRS Document 267 Filed 04/04/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID 4066 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION TASER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. Case No:
More informationSPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB
SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme
More informationCase: 1:09-cv Document #: 245 Filed: 12/02/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:2016
Case: 1:09-cv-05637 Document #: 245 Filed: 12/02/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:2016 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) Plaintiff,
More informationSHARPLY DIVIDED EN BANC FEDERAL CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS APPLICATION OF A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
SHARPLY DIVIDED EN BANC FEDERAL CIRCUIT REAFFIRMS APPLICATION OF A DE NOVO STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION On February 21, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lighting Ballast Control, LLC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:08-cv-00429-D Document 85 Filed 04/16/2010 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TINA MARIE SOMERLOTT ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Case No. CIV-08-429-D
More informationADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK GOOGLE INC. V. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2007) BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP V. SUPER DUCK TOURS, LLC 527 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.
More informationMastering Civil Procedure Checklist
Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,
More informationCOPYRIGHT 2009 THE LAW PROFESSOR
CIVIL PROCEDURE SHOPPING LIST OF ISSUES FOR CIVIL PROCEDURE Professor Gould s Shopping List for Civil Procedure. 1. Pleadings. 2. Personal Jurisdiction. 3. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. 4. Amended Pleadings.
More informationCase: 1:14-cv Document #: 299 Filed: 02/13/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: Plaintiff, No. 14 CV 2028
Case: 1:14-cv-02028 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/13/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:10318 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RACHEL JOHNSON, v. YAHOO! INC., Plaintiff,
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No.06-937 In the Supreme Court of the United States QUANTA COMPUTER, INC., ET AL., v. Petitioners, LG ELECTRONICS, INC., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationCase 1:08-cv LW Document 79 Filed 09/08/09 Page 1 of 9. : : : : : : : : : : Plaintiff,
Case 108-cv-02972-LW Document 79 Filed 09/08/09 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN JACKSON,
More informationBrian D'Alfonso v. Eugene Carpino
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-17-2009 Brian D'Alfonso v. Eugene Carpino Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 09-3461 Follow
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 13-1881 Elaine T. Huffman; Charlene S. Sandler lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Credit Union of Texas lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-26-2013 USA v. Jo Benoit Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-3745 Follow this and additional
More information(B) in section 316(a) 2. (i) in paragraph (11), by striking 3. section 315(c) and inserting section 4. (ii) in paragraph (12), by striking 6
(B) in section (a) (i) in paragraph (), by striking section (c) and inserting section (d) ; and (ii) in paragraph (), by striking section (c) and inserting section (d) ; and (C) in section (a), by striking
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Emerson Electric Co. v. Suzhou Cleva Electric Applicance Co., Ltd. et al Doc. 290 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs.
More informationDIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JUNE 12, 2003 JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN S IMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY BANKRUPTCY STAYS OF LITIGATION AGAINST NON-DEBTORS JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP JUNE 12, 2003 Most courts have held the insured versus insured exclusion
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. August Term, (Argued: May 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008) Docket No.
07-0757-cv In re: Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2007 (Argued: May 14, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008) Docket No. 07-0757-cv
More informationAIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP
AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome
More information2012 Winston & Strawn LLP
2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 17-CR-124 MARCUS HUTCHINS, Defendant. UNITED STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT S MOTION TO
More informationThe Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO
The Scope and Ramifications of the New Post-Grant and Inter Partes Review Proceedings at the USPTO By Lawrence A. Stahl and Donald H. Heckenberg The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) makes numerous
More information4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule On RICO's Reach
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com 4 Takeaways From The High Court's New Rule
More informationCAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK
CAN A PATENT ONCE ADJUDICATED TO BE INVALID BE RESURRECTED? RONALD A. CLAYTON Partner FITZPATRICK, CELLA, HARPER & SCINTO NEW YORK, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION It has long been considered black letter law that
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 13-56657, 06/08/2016, ID: 10006069, DktEntry: 32-1, Page 1 of 11 (1 of 16) FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH A. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHAEL &
More information