In a narrow but potentially significant decision, the Supreme Court has held that securities-fraud plaintiffs cannot recover based on a “pure omission” from a company’s public statements under the most common legal basis for...more
4/16/2024
/ Disclosure Requirements ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp v Moab Partners LP ,
Omissions ,
Rule 10(b) ,
Rule 10b-5 ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Fraud ,
Securities Regulation ,
Securities Violations
On September 29, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could significantly affect the scope of corporate liability under the securities laws. Lower courts disagree on whether the SEC-required “management’s discussion...more
The US Supreme Court has held that companies can be forced, as a condition of doing business in a state, to agree to be sued in that state’s courts — even if the lawsuit has nothing to do with that state. In its June 27,...more
6/29/2023
/ Commerce Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Due Process ,
Foreign Corporations ,
General Jurisdiction ,
Mallory v Norfolk Southern Railway Co ,
Out-of-State Companies ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Registration Requirement ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
Statutory Interpretation
The Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision clarifying what it means to “knowingly” submit a false claim under the False Claims Act. At issue in United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. were allegations...more
6/6/2023
/ Discount Pricing ,
Drug Pricing ,
False Claims Act (FCA) ,
Federal Contractors ,
Fraud ,
Medicaid ,
Medicare ,
Mens Rea ,
Objective Standard ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Pharmacies ,
Prescription Drugs ,
Safeco Insurance Co of America v Burr ,
Scienter ,
SCOTUS ,
Subjective Standard ,
US ex rel Tracy Schutte et al v SuperValu Inc et al ,
Willful Violations
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a closely watched case regarding patent law’s enablement requirement, Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi. The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that Amgen’s patent claims were invalid,...more
5/24/2023
/ Amgen ,
Biotechnology ,
Enablement Inquiries ,
Life Sciences ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Sanofi ,
SCOTUS
Last fall, after returning from a year of telephone arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed its argument format. The biggest change was the addition of an untimed round of questioning at the end of each...more
This fall, after returning from a year of telephone arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed its argument format. The biggest change was the addition of an untimed round of questioning at the end of each...more
This fall, after returning from a year of telephone arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed its argument format. The biggest change was the addition of an untimed round of questioning at the end of each...more
This fall, after returning from a year of telephone arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed its argument format. The biggest change was the addition of an untimed round of questioning at the end of each...more
This fall, after returning from a year of telephone arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed its argument format. The biggest change was the addition of an untimed round of questioning at the end of each...more
This fall, after returning from a year of telephone arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly changed its argument format. The biggest change was the addition of an untimed round of questioning at the end of each...more
In the long-awaited decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is unconstitutionally structured, but held that the correct remedy is more limited than...more
6/22/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
The United States Supreme Court yesterday narrowed the scope of judicial review of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In a 7-2 decision in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Court...more
4/21/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court preserved inter partes review (and similar procedures), but made a significant change in how it will be conducted. In Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, the Court held...more
In the closely watched case Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employee Retirement Fund, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 did not eliminate concurrent state court...more
The Supreme Court has unanimously decided, in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, No. 16-1276, that the whistleblower protections of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 are only available...more
2/26/2018
/ Anti-Retaliation Provisions ,
Digital Realty Trust Inc v Somers ,
Dodd-Frank ,
Internal Reporting ,
Reporting Requirements ,
Retaliation ,
Sarbanes-Oxley ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Violations ,
Whistleblower Protection Policies ,
Whistleblowers
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 abolishes state court jurisdiction over class action lawsuits that allege only claims under the Securities Act of 1933....more
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the closely watched case of California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., holding that claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933...more
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether inter partes review, the procedure that allows a Patent and Trademark Office tribunal to invalidate patents, is unconstitutional. A decision agreeing with the constitutional...more
On June 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission that disgorgement in an SEC case is subject to the five-year statute of limitations for civil monetary...more
In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC that for purposes of venue in patent-infringement litigation, a U.S. corporation “resides” only in the...more
Summary -
In Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court clarified the test for whether artistic features of a useful article are separable and therefore copyright eligible. The...more
4/3/2017
/ Cheerleaders ,
Copyright ,
Copyright Infringement ,
Copyrightable Subject Matter ,
Fashion Design ,
Fashion Industry ,
Graphic Designs ,
SCOTUS ,
Section 101 ,
Separability ,
Sports Apparel ,
Star Athletica v Varsity Brands ,
The Copyright Act ,
Uniforms ,
Utilitarian Function
Business trusts, statutory trusts and non-corporate real-estate investment trusts now face a significant jurisdictional barrier that will reduce their access to the federal courts, following a March 7 ruling by the U.S....more
Trademark disputes often focus on whether two marks create a “likelihood of confusion” with one another. That issue can come up before a court considering trademark infringement; before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board...more
On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the definitive rule governing the timing of appeals from a multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL). The Court held that plaintiffs in actions centralized in an MDL whose...more