Estoppel

News & Analysis as of

Seventh Circuit Issues Stern Warning For Insurers That Reject Their Duty to Defend

The first line of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion says it all: “This case provides a warning for insurance companies who refuse to defend their insureds.” As the court’s admonishment suggests, insurers that improperly refuse to...more

Seventh Circuit warns insurance companies who refuse to defend their insureds

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued “a warning for insurance companies who refuse to defend their insureds.” In National American Insurance Company v. Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company, No. 14-2694, 2015...more

An Invalidity Argument Without a Home? The PTAB's Discretion to Ignore Grounds for Invalidity

By Shaun R. Snader[1] & George C. Beck The post-grant proceedings established by the America Invents Act – inter partes review (IPR), covered business method (CBM) review, and post-grant review (PGR) –promise faster,...more

In an IPR, Issue Preclusion Does Not Attach Until Appeal Rights Are Exhausted - SDI Technologies, Inc., v. Bose Corp.

Addressing issue preclusion in the context of an inter partes review (IPR), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) allowed the patent owner to present patentability and admissibility arguments from a related IPR,...more

PTAB Decisions Add Some Clarity to Estoppel in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) created three new mechanisms for members of the public, including competitors, to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. Patent. As of June 30, 2015, 3,160 petitions for inter...more

Where’s the Beef Part II: Court Refuses To “Butcher” EEOC’s Religious Discrimination Claim

Our loyal blog readers may recall a post we authored in October 2013 regarding EEOC v. JBS USA, LLC (the “Nebraska Case”), where Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp of the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska entered...more

CBM Claims Not Addressed in the PTAB's Final Decision May Be Challenged in a Follow-On CBM Proceeding

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board added a decision declining to apply estoppel under 35 USC 325(e)(1) to dismiss a follow-on CBM proceeding in Westlake Services LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176 to the...more

Real Party-in-Interest and Privy of the Petitioner: Part 2 in Estoppel Analysis

Last week we outlined our suggestions as to what an IPR petitioner should assert in an IPR action to avoid triggering the "could have raised" estoppel in a later filed district court action. But what if the party involved in...more

AT&T “Prisoners” Can’t Escape Common Sense: D.C. Circuit Shackles NLRB T-shirt Decision

In a refreshing decision for employers, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this month tossed an eyebrow-raising NLRB decision which permitted AT&T customer-facing and publicly visible technicians to wear faux prison...more

Board Guidance on its View of Petitioner Estoppel: Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp:

Last week, the Board provided an opinion to offer guidance on its view of the scope of petitioner estoppel. The Westlake Services v. Credit Acceptance Corp. decision relates to the scope of estoppel to a Petitioner following...more

Florida Court Rules Borrowers Who Surrender Property in Bankruptcy Can't Later Take it Back

Thanks to several recent United States Bankruptcy Court decisions in Florida, mortgage servicers should now expect borrowers who surrender their real property in bankruptcy to not contest foreclosure later. Since the...more

Breaching the Duty to Defend: Remedy for Recovering Peace of Mind

Given the American Law Institute’s recent discussion at its May 2015 meeting, regarding Preliminary Draft No. 1 of the Restatement on Liability Insurance, Chapter 2, Sections 20 and 21, I would like to add my voice to those...more

Recent Case Law, PTAB Decisions Provide Clarity on Exceptions to "Could-Have-Raised" Estoppel

35 USC §315(e)(2) prohibits a petitioner (or real party in interest or privy of the petitioner) in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) of a patent claim from asserting in district court litigation that "the claim is invalid on any...more

Amended Report is Not a Refund Claim

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania en banc unanimously held that an amended report filed by a taxpayer could not be considered a petition for a refund of CNI Tax. Quest Diagnostics Venture, LLC v. Commonwealth, No. 782...more

The Class Action Chronicle - Summer 2015

In This Issue: - The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2015 - Class Certification Decisions: ..Decisions Granting Motions to Strike/Dismiss Class Claims ..Decisions Denying Motions to...more

Davidson v. Henkel — What’s Going On With Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plans and FICA

In This Presentation: - Davidson v. Henkel Corp. - The Parties - NQ Plan - The Plan’s Tax Clauses - Davidson’s Pre-Retirement Counseling - 2011 Compliance Review and Letter - Henkel’s Tax...more

Backup Anticipation with Obviousness - Dell Inc. v. Elecs. & Telecomms. Research Inst.

Addressing the issue of estoppel and joinder, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied a petitioner’s challenge, finding the petitioner was estopped from requesting the additional...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law: Spring 2015 - Vol. 13, Issue 2

In This Issue: - After B&B Hardware, What is the Full Scope of Estoppel Arising From a PTAB Decision in District Court Litigation? - When You Don’t Know What You Know: The Role of Unappreciated Inherency in the...more

Ironside: TCC Orders Hearing of Question on Rule 58 Motion

In Ironside v. The Queen (2015 TCC 116), the Tax Court allowed the Crown’s Rule 58 motion for a determination of a question of law before the hearing, namely whether the taxpayer was estopped from litigating an issue that had...more

Don’t Trust, Verify: What Every Business Needs to Know About Certificates of Insurance

The general rule in New York is that a certificate of insurance (COI), by itself, does not provide insurance coverage. That means that businesses that rely solely on COIs as evidence of their status as additional insureds...more

The Fact That an Argument Is a Loser Is Not Enough to Make It Stand Out in a Crowd

Order Denying Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions and Attorney Fees, Kreative Power, LLC, v. Monoprice, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-02991-SI (Judge Susan Illston) - Little more than a year has passed since the Supreme Court...more

The PTAB Explores Estoppel in New Representative Decision

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently announced the addition of its March 26, 2015 decision in Dell, Inc. et al. v. Electronics and Telecomms. Res. Inst., IPR2015-00549 (“the ‘549 IPR”) to its online list of...more

Pennsylvania Court Denies Motion For Summary Judgment Over Facultative Reinsurance Certificates

The Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denied defendant OneBeacon Insurance Company’s (“OneBeacon”) motion for summary judgment against plaintiffs Century Indemnity Company (“Century”) and Pacific Employers...more

Appellate Court Notes

- SC19245 - Nation-Bailey v. Bailey - SC19245 Concurrence - Nation-Bailey v. Bailey Holding that a separation agreement that requires the payment of unallocated alimony and child support ‘‘until the …. [w]ife’s...more

4th Circuit Finds Insurer Was Not Required to Provide Notice Prior to Cancelling Life Insurance Policy for Unpaid Premium

An insured’s failure to make payments on his life insurance policy led it to lapse before his death according to Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Wactor v. Jackson National Life Insurance Co., No. 13-2367, 2015 WL 1020653...more

70 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×