Midyear Banking Review
If I won my case, why do I need to worry about an appeal?
One of the big Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Enforcement litigation developments of the past two years has been the federal judiciary’s rejection of the agency’s “de novo review” position in electricity market...more
Legal Update - Matt Connolly, a senior associate in Nutter’s Litigation Department, addressed Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) investigations in Nutter Insights. Matt discussed what triggers a FERC...more
Negotiating an In-Project Construction Dispute - Many thorny and competing interests are implicated when an ongoing major construction project experiences an unanticipated event that impacts the project schedule or...more
In a line of much-anticipated decisions, two federal district courts ruled to protect the procedural due process rights of entities targeted by FERC enforcement actions. Recent decisions in Massachusetts and the District of...more
The decision will likely affect the strategies of enforcement targets in electric market manipulation cases. For the first time, a federal district judge has held that a review of a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
The Supreme Court recently handed down its 7-2 opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case involved a Federal Circuit review of a district court’s determination that Teva’s patent claims were not...more
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA,...more
Recently, the Supreme Court changed the standard of review the Federal Circuit must use when reviewing district court claim construction decisions in patent cases. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on the standard of review of factual findings by the trial court in construing patent claims. The Court ruled that factual findings in the context of...more
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided a narrow but important issue of appellate jurisdiction in cases that have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. A...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (Case No. 13-854), which changed the level of deference the Federal Circuit must show to district court claim...more
On Jan. 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision setting forth a new standard for appellate review of a district court’s claim construction ruling. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, slip op., 574...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court revised the standard of review used by the Federal Circuit for nearly twenty years in reviewing claim construction rulings, replacing a de novo standard...more
This week, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit must apply a deferential “clear error” standard of review to any finding of fact underlying a district court’s...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S.__ (2015), holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error" standard when...more
Supreme Court Building #3It has escaped almost no one's notice that the Supreme Court has spent the past decade or so being much more involved in patent law than in preceding twenty years. Evident but perhaps less discussed...more
In a 7–2 decision penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the de novo standard as the sole standard of review of issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more
In a recent case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Et Al. V. Sandoz, Inc. Et Al., the Supreme Court of the United States clarified that subsidiary issues of fact determined by a District Court during patent claim construction...more
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., finding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for some deference in the claim construction standard of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court kicked 2015 off with an intellectual property bang, issuing two important rulings earlier this week. Both decisions focus on the facts underpinning intellectual property disputes—who decides them and...more
This week, the Court rendered two IP opinions in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (argued October 15, 2014) and Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211 (argued December 3, 2014) . Teva...more
The Court creates a hybrid standard of review. On January 20, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court altered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s longstanding de novo...more
The United States Supreme Court clarified yet another important standard in patent law by mandating that the Federal Circuit apply clear error review when reviewing subsidiary factfindings in patent claim construction. Teva...more
The recent history of Supreme Court patent cases has made the dissent a seemingly endangered species, the Court consistently deciding important patent cases by 9-0 votes and, at best, garnering concurring opinions for...more