In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that defendants in securities fraud cases brought by the SEC are entitled by the Seventh Amendment to have the SEC’s claims for civil money penalties decided by a jury and not in an...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitles the defendant to a...more
But it’s Complicated. And, of course, OFCCP’s Enforcement Scheme will “not go gentle into that good night.” The case decision is Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (Case No. 22-859; i.e., “SEC decision”). ...more
For more than a decade, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has been able to bring enforcement actions in either federal court or the agency’s internal venue. Not anymore. On June 27, 2024, the U.S....more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of the federal...more
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court ruled that inter partes reviews (IPRs) do not improperly divest the courts of their judicial authority and do not violate the Seventh...more
In 2012, Congress created a new procedure that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a litigation-like procedure to review and potentially cancel patents. This procedure - inter partes review (“IPR”) - has...more
As the most-active firm practicing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), we are proud to have shared in our clients’ successes over the years. Fish was one of the first firms to file a post-grant petition in 2012, and...more
On April 24th, the Supreme Court decided two important cases related to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for reconsidering the prior grant of a patent – Oil States Energy...more
• The Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy ruled 7-2 that cancellation of patent claims in an inter partes review does not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. • In SAS...more
This timely and fast-moving webinar provides insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the recently issued Supreme Court decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute...more
In a pair of decisions issued on April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the constitutionality of and the appropriate practice for inter partes review. The 7-2 majority opinion in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v....more
On April 24, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided two important cases that directly impact inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and patent litigation as a whole. In Oil States Energy...more
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important patent law opinions that relate to the inter partes review procedure introduced by the America Invents Act: Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,...more
Is inter partes review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, and the U.S. Supreme Court this week...more
Today in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of IPR proceedings, finding that they are a permissible second review of patents conducted by the administrative agency that issues them...more
The Supreme Court issued decisions in the cases of Oil States v. Greene’s Energy and SAS v. Iancu, addressing the constitutionality of inter partes review (“IPR”) and determining whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC rejecting a Constitutional challenge to the inter partes review (IPR) procedure for challenging an issued...more
Oil States preserved the PTAB, and SAS Institute makes it a more important venue for patentability challenges. Key Points: ..IPR and other post-grant proceedings before the PTAB will continue. ..However, the PTAB may...more
In a highly anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings. Justice Thomas, writing for the seven-member majority in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy...more
In a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, the...more
Rumors of the PTAB’s demise were greatly exaggerated, it turns out. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held on Tuesday that Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) violate neither Article III nor the Seventh Amendment of the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday on two closely monitored cases impacting how patents could be challenged. In the more high-profile case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPR) process...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712, affirming the constitutionality of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) inter...more
In a pair of anticipated decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court again wades into AIA reviews before the PTAB. Our Intellectual Property Group breaks down the Justices’ thinking and outlines the practical outcomes of both cases....more