Remote Work and Religion: New Legal Risks for Employers in 2025 - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Solicitors General Insights: The Art of Oral Advocacy With Michigan and New Jersey — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
NLRB Authority in Jeopardy, Pregnant Worker Protections, Non-Compete Order Rescinded, EEOC Right-to-Sue Rule - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Reverse Discrimination in the Workplace with Jennie Cluverius and Fay Edwards of Maynard Nexsen
HHS Policy Changes, Supreme Court Rulings, and the DOJ-HHS False Claims Act Working Group
Mid-Year Labor & Employment Law Update: Key Developments and Compliance Strategies
FTC and Florida Focus on Non-Competes, SCOTUS to Rule on Pension Withdrawal Liability - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA: The Intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law
Sittenfeld v. United States – Campaign Contributions as Crimes?
The Briefing: The Supreme Court Dodges the Discovery Rule Question—What That Means for Copyright Enforcement
(Podcast) The Briefing: The Supreme Court Dodges the Discovery Rule Question—What That Means for Copyright Enforcement
Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
Solicitors General Insights: The Tale of Two Washingtons — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
SCOTUS Clean Air Act Cases: What’s New?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Sinking the Rogers Test? What Pepperdine’s Lawsuit Could Mean for Hollywood
The Briefing: Sinking the Rogers Test? What Pepperdine’s Lawsuit Could Mean for Hollywood
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Rewriting the Rules: The Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Clean Water Act Permits
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board unpatentability determination during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, concluding that the Board’s decision to not apply...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
With this decision, the US Supreme Court again prioritizes giving the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) a second chance to review and potentially weed out “bad patents,” over permitting parties the opportunity to challenge...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court held that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review (IPR) even on a petition filed beyond the 35...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year after...more
Yesterday, in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP[i], the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)[ii], which preclude a petitioner from filing an inter partes review petition more than one year...more
In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP the Supreme Court held, 7-2, that patent owners cannot appeal determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declining to apply the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)....more
On June 24, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari in Thryv, Inc. fka Dex Media Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP on the question of whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - On December 9, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, Case No. 18-916. The case involves the proper application of Section 315(b) of the...more
#10 Design Patent Damages § 289 - Samsung Elecs. Co., v. Apple Inc., 580 U.S. _ (Dec. 6, 2016) - In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under...more
Obvious Combinations Do Not Need to Be Physically Combinable - In Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. v. Genesis Attachments, LLC, Appeal No. 2015-1533, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s invalidity finding...more
Recently, the Supreme Court declined to make any changes to IPR procedure in its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). Relying primarily on statutory language and concepts of agency rulemaking...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
In Depth - The Supreme Court of the United States (Justice Breyer writing for the majority) affirmed a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision barring judicial review of most decisions regarding institution...more
The Supreme Court’s decision will not likely change much in the near term — especially in light of the fact that it made no express changes to PTO procedure for and regulations governing IPR. Last week, the U.S. Supreme...more
Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee (No. 2015-446, 6/20/16) (Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan) - June 20, 2016 12:49 PM - Breyer, J. Affirming Federal Circuit decision that the...more
This week in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the United States Supreme Court decided two important questions related to the power of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) over inter partes review proceedings. First,...more
Supreme Court sides with Patent Office’s rulemaking authority. On Monday, June 20, 2016, the US Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited Cuozzo decision, affirming the Federal Circuit’s decision. Specifically, the Court: ...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in five cases today: RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, No. 15-138: The European Union and 26 of its members filed an action in District Court against...more
The Supreme Court issued a decision this week that is significant for all companies that operate in patent-intensive industries. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, — S.Ct. — (2016), the Supreme Court considered...more
Addressing the America Invents Act proceedings for the first time, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee largely maintained the status quo. The Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal...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
This article contains important information relating to recent developments in patent law and, as such, is intended for an audience that either currently owns a patent or is in the process of obtaining one. The Supreme...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 3369425 (June 20, 2016) upheld the Patent Office’s long-held policy of construing a patent claim according to its broadest...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