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
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Retirement of “Chevron Doctrine” Exposed Vulnerability of OFCCP’s Overreaching Interpretations of Some of its Rules
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 5: What the End of Agency Deference Means for the Healthcare Industry
#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB's Proposed Overdraft Rule — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Overruling Chevron: A Potential Double-Edged Sword for the Financial Services Industry — The Consumer Finance Podcast
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB’s Proposed Overdraft Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
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: The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework Part I
#WorkforceWednesday: Federal Agencies Pushing Boundaries Met with Backlash, Impacts of SCOTUS Chevron Deference - Employment Law This Week®
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
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: What the Recent Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more
United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquida Techs., Inc., No. 2023-1805 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2023), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. June 10, 2024) (No. 23-1298) - On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark...more
Venable has offered general thoughts on the potential fallout from the Supreme Court's reversal of the long-standing Chevron deference, as well as practice area-specific analysis. Here, the Intellectual Property Litigation...more
Administrative agencies long enjoyed deference from the courts under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Chevron required courts to give leeway to agencies interpreting...more
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court expressly overruled Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This landmark 6-3 ruling ends nearly 40-years of Chevron deference, the doctrine of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to no longer give deference to government agency interpretations could lead to challenges against U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules....more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that the “clear and unambiguous text of” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not authorize “same-party joinder” and...more
It's often said that hard cases make bad law. And that is what had happened here: faced with an unreasonable number of potentially asserted claims in litigation, and a Plaintiff not required to identify which of those...more
James Kisor, a Korean War Veteran, asked the Supreme Court to overrule a longstanding presumption that courts defer to an executive agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulation, a principle known as Auer...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
In an August 12, 2019 order, the Federal Circuit asked the government what deference, if any, should the court give PTAB Precedential Opinion Panel ("POP") decisions. Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC (Fed. Cir....more
The Federal Circuit recently asked the government to submit an amicus brief to address “what, if any, deference should be afforded to decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board Precedential Opinion Panel (‘POP’), and...more
Addressing 35 USC § 315(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sat en banc to determine whether dismissal “without prejudice” would extinguish the effect of a previously served infringement complaint, an event...more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). SAS involved a challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) practice of instituting inter partes...more
On April 24, 2018, in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, a closely divided U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board confronts inter partes reviews under the America Invents Act. The...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
On April 24, 2018, the same day that the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (IPR) challenges to issued patents in one decision (Oil States Energy Services v. Green’s Energy Group), it also...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
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
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
The Supreme Court has ruled by a narrow majority of 5-4 that the Patent Office’s regulation allowing for partial institution decisions in inter partes review is foreclosed by the text of 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). SAS Institute Inc....more
A recent decision calls into question the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) regulation providing that B delay stops accruing as soon as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) is filed. In March 2018, the PTO declined to...more
Fractured Federal Circuit Holds Patent Owner Does Not Bear Burden of Persuasion in IPR Motions to Amend - In Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Appeal No. 2015-1177, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that a patent...more