What is at will employment law?
Patent Office Litigation Update: IPR Discovery and Evidentiary PTAB Decisions
[Legal Perspective] When Is It NOT Okay to Delete Your Social Media Account?
N.Y. Anti-Terror Law Diminishes Pursuit of Terrorism: Lawyer
Federal Criminal Defense Attorney - Overturning A Guilty Verdict in a Federal Criminal Appeal
What issues do people raise in a federal criminal appeal?
How Does Cooperating In A Federal Criminal Case Work?
How do federal conspiracy charges work?
Newtown Shootings Could Give Rise to More Litigation, Says Pinsky
Rajaratnam Judge: Wiretaps in Insider Trading Cases are "Radical"
On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC.1 The Court held that the burden of persuasion for proving patent infringement remains with the patentee in a...more
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision issued on January 22, 2014, held that the burden of proof in patent infringement actions falls upon the patentee, regardless of whether the patentee is the moving party in the...more
In a nine to zero decision authored by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit and held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that the...more
A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision authored by Justice Breyer, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of...more
In its first intellectual property ruling of the current term, the Supreme Court unanimously held on January 22, 2014 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC that a patentee always bears the burden of proving...more
A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more
The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more
The legal collection of evidence in a criminal defense matter is crucial. So is its presentation. In a recent Supreme Court case, the Court discussed a Nevada matter and the appropriateness of exclusion of evidence for the...more
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives citizens freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and requires any warrant for arrest or seizure to be supported by probable cause. That warrant must be...more
When faced with questions from a government investigator, a person’s silence can now be used in a criminal trial against the person who was questioned and declined to provide an answer....more
Overview: The U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the Fifth Amendment claims of a man whose silence during police questioning was used as evidence of guilt. During a non-custodial interrogation, the murder suspect answered...more
In this issue:
- Questions Left Unanswered by Louboutin Case
- Supreme Court Rules on Covenant Not to Sue
- An Eye for Fashion: New York Magazine Presents New York’s
- Women Leaders in the...more
Lynda Zadra-Symes is a litigation partner in the Orange County, Calif., office of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP. She represents clients through all stages of U.S. litigation, from presuits through trial and appeal, in...more
The outcome of civil litigation often hinges upon the ability of litigants to rely upon or exclude public records and reports and, in particular, opinions contained in them. Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) (“Rule 803(8)” or...more
Overview: In a 5-4 decision,the U.S. Supreme Court this week ruled that a Florida police dog’s sniffing for drugs in front of a man’s home constituted an illegal search. Based on an unverified tip, police physically entered...more
Originally Published in Daily Journal, January 15, 2013.
As we look back on 2012, federal funds continued to make their way to local projects and shovels continued to break ground for infrastructure projects. This led to...more
That rarest of rara aves issued from the Supreme Court yesterday, an affirmance of a Federal Circuit opinion in Kappos v. Hyatt. Perhaps it is because, as in Stanford v. Roche one of the parties was the government (here,...more
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its much-anticipated and long-awaited decision in Bilski v. Kappos1, a case centered on the scope of patent-eligibility of process claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Not...more
Back to Top