First Republic Executives Fail in Attempt to Recover Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan Assets
In Impossible X LLC v. Impossible Foods Inc., Impossible Foods recently filed an opposition to Impossible X’s petition for certiorari, which asks the Supreme Court to decide (1) whether some disputes should require so-called...more
Policy debates normally focus on substance. Is climate change real? How can business entities weigh environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their decision-making? ...more
The rare insurance dispute has appeared on the horizon for the nation’s highest court. Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and agreed to take up the case of Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty...more
This week our nation's highest court will decide whether to review the 6th Circuit's conclusion that a declaratory judgment of liability starts the statute of limitations clock for the liable party to bring a contribution...more
In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that there may be no prevailing party for purposes of assessing costs and attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)....more
On March 16, 2022, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California certified two of the hot button issues splitting district courts on the standard for pleading willful infringement (see order),...more
On May 12, in Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that there is no general rule preventing patent enforcement letters from providing the basis for jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action. The...more
On April 7, in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Federal Circuit held that Apple lacked standing to appeal final decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), upholding validity in two inter partes review...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
Five In-Home Supportive Service (“IHSS”) providers filed a class-action lawsuit last month challenging their union’s practice of deducting union dues despite their quitting the union. The workers allege their First Amendment...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
The Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., marking the first time the Court has interpreted the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) for the approval of biosimilar drugs. On...more
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two important questions under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"), which provides an abbreviated pathway for the approval of generic biologics: (i) the...more
On a sweltering hot D.C. morning, those of us anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s opinion in its first case involving biosimilar biological products finally exhaled. The June 12, 2017 opinion followed the parties’ oral...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court for the first time interpreted key provisions of the 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). See Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 15-1195...more
On June 12, 2017, in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that a drug manufacturer may give a required 180-day notice of its intent to market a biosimilar drug before receiving FDA...more
Yesterday’s unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sandoz v. Amgen injects much needed certainty into a difficult statute and streamlines the process for biosimilar products to enter the marketplace following FDA...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., the Supreme Court brought greater certainty to two key issues relating to the “patent dance” under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). First, the Court held that where a...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195, in which it held that (a) a manufacturer of a licensed biological product cannot obtain federal injunctive relief to enforce 42...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
On April 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195), on appeal from the Federal Circuit's July 21, 2015, opinion interpreting various provisions of the Biologics...more
In its recent four-word decision (“The judgment is affirmed.”) Independence Institute v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a campaign finance law requirement that donors backing certain campaign ads...more
On January 13, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Amgen v. Sandoz, 794. F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and Sandoz v. Amgen, 773 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2014), appealed from the Federal Circuit. The petitions involve the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review some of the patent dispute resolution provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The Court granted certiorari in the dispute between Amgen and Sandoz,...more
On Friday, Jan. 13, the Supreme Court granted the appellant’s petition and the respondent’s cross-petition for a writ of certiorari in Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. This is the first time the Court will construe the Biologics...more