Regulatory Rollback: CFPB’s Withdrawal of Informal Guidance Sparks New Litigation Dynamics – The Consumer Finance Podcast
Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prof. Hal Scott Doubles Down on His Argument That CFPB is Unlawfully Funded Because of Combined Losses at Federal Reserve Banks
Hospice Insights Podcast - What a Difference No Deference Makes: Courts No Longer Bow to Administrative Agencies
False Claims Act Insights - How a Marine Fisheries Dispute Opened an FCA Can of Worms
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 210: Impacts of the Chevron Doctrine Ruling with Mark Moore and Michael Parente of Maynard Nexsen
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument
A recent memo from the acting director of the US Patent and Trademark Office directs the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to reject inter partes review (IPR) petitions that use “applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert...more
On July 31, 2025, Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart released a memo instructing the agency “that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA), expert testimony, common sense, and other evidence that is not ‘prior art...more
On July 31, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a new memorandum announcing that it will begin enforcing 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) that requires petitioners in inter partes review (IPR) proceeding to “specify...more
Patent law in many respects has its own language and idiosyncratic expressions, and one such respect involves so-called "transitional" words or phrases (discussed in greater depth in the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure...more
IN RE: VETEMENTS GROUP AG - Before Prost, Wallach, and Chen. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. A party opposing application of the doctrine of foreign equivalents has the burden to show that the ordinary...more
On May 23, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued a precedential opinion reversing a final written decision from the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) finding the challenged...more
Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., No. 23-1208 (Fed. Cir. 2025)—On April 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that claims of Qualcomm’s U.S. Patent No. 8,063,674 (“the ’674...more
In its recent decision in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to allow Ingenico to introduce certain prior art at trial, finding that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel...more
In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more
On March 24, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) issued a decision titled In Re: Riggs (the Riggs decision) that vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US...more
Section 311(b) limits inter partes review to “ground[s] that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” 35 U.S.C. § 311(b) (emphasis added). An...more