Our Securities Litigation Group highlights three recent Supreme Court decisions that every securities class action litigator should know....more
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, 2025 WL 1716136 (U.S. June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court determined that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to...more
On June 5, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a significant question regarding class-action certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The question...more
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal of a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision interpreting the limitations period for filing lawsuits under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. ...more
On June 5, 2025, in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted a case presenting the question of whether a certified class properly may include both injured and...more
On March 16, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Biogen’s petition for en banc review in Biogen International GmbH et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Petition Denial"), in which a Federal Circuit...more
In Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367 (2020), the Supreme Court held that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board declining to apply the time bar of 35 U.S.C....more
The question of whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has any right to examine a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review or post...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
At Federal Circuitry blog, we like to check in once in a while on what the Federal Circuit is doing in its orders that don’t get posted on the public website. Those orders often offer nuggets about practice at the Federal...more
In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prevents prosecutors in criminal cases from exercising peremptory challenges to excuse...more
In the wake of its six-week-old decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court of the United States has now granted certiorari in an appeal of another case arising from a Federal Circuit appeal...more
The Supreme Court of the United States has recently decided that the discretion of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board” or “PTAB”) to institute an inter partes review (“IPR”), despite challenges to its timeliness,...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
Addressing the scope of review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) application of the one-year time bar of 35 USC § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, the Supreme...more
Despite the current environment of social distancing, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has continued full operations while eliminating face-to-face interactions. For example, Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Any person may challenge the validity of a U.S. patent on the basis that previously issued patents or publications render the patent’s claims invalid as being anticipated by the prior art or obvious in view of the prior art,...more
“I'm willing to admit that I may not always be right, but I am never wrong,” Samuel Goldwyn once said, and the same is true for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) when it comes to determining the timeliness of inter...more
On April 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs., LP, No. 18-916 (S. Ct. Apr. 20, 2020), finding that the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of an IPR under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) is...more
This week, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the scope of the AIA’s “no appeal” provision found in 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) (“Section 314(d)”). Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Techs, L.P., No. 18-916, 2020 WL 1906544 (Apr....more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies LP, the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) decisions regarding the time limit for filing inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) are not subject to...more
The Decision. On April 20, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute inter partes review (IPR) are not appealable, even if such institution decisions may...more
Addressing the scope of review of the PTAB’s application of the one-year time bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) in deciding whether to institute an IPR proceeding, the US Supreme Court held that the PTAB’s application of the time bar...more
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Thryv, Fka Dex Media v. Click-To-Call Techs., No. 18-916, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2406 (2020), held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ("Board") decision...more
- 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