Quick Guide to Administrative Hearings
In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
DE Under 3: New NLx Job Count Record; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Big Strike Down; OFCCP’s Latest CSAL
Join the Litigators Lounge with Offit Kurman’s Anders Sleight and Niall McMillan as they dive into the nuances of administrative proceedings versus typical civil court cases, focusing on the process, discovery limitations,...more
[co-author: Kathleen Wills] Last year, the global COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for American courts. By making several changes, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was able to...more
The justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have again limited the reach of Chevron deference. On May 28, 2019, the Court in Smith v. Berryhill carved another exception into what has lately proven to be its...more
On May 28, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Berryhill, holding a dismissal by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council on timeliness grounds after a claimant has had an administrative law judge...more
Broadcom sought inter partes review of three patents owned by Wi-Fi One. In response to Broadcom’s petitions, Wi-Fi One argued that the IPR was barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because Broadcom was in privity with certain...more
IN THIS ISSUE: -Abbott/Takeda permitted to plead that a third party’s patent would be infringed by alleged non-infringing alternative - PMPRB News: **PMPRB issues a Notice of Hearing for allegations of excessive...more
The Federal Circuit determined that Article III standing was not necessary for an appellee to participate in a judicial appeal of an IPR final written decision because the appellant had Article III standing in Personal Audio,...more
Federal Court of Appeal finds that Apotex did not fail to mitigate its damages in relation to Apo-Trazodone drug submission - On April 6, 2017, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned the Federal Court’s finding that...more
On January 9, 2017, in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that petitioner Phigenix lacked standing to appeal an adverse final written decision in an IPR. While acknowledging that the AIA permits a...more
While many of us spent this past Halloween gorging on a variety of candies and sweets, Wisconsin’s court of appeals was busy rendering an opinion that likely left Travis Technology High School (“Travis Tech”) with a decidedly...more
HHS announced a Proposed Rule on July 5, 2016 aimed at reducing the backlog of appeals at the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals (OMHA) and Departmental Appeals Board (DAB) for Medicare payment and coverage...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more
On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court handed a victory to the Patent Office, affirming its broad discretion in the institution and management of post-issuance proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith...more
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holdings on claim construction and the scope of judicial review in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding....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
In its first pronouncement regarding the post-grant reviewing proceedings established by the America Invents Act ("AIA"), the Supreme Court ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office's positions on two of the law's provisions...more