News & Analysis as of

Evidence Supreme Court of the United States Appeals

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Bronx DA’s Attempted End-Run Around Confrontation Clause

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP on

In Hemphill v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the defendant “did not forfeit his confrontation right merely by making [a] plea allocution arguably relevant to his theory of defense.” The Court rejected the attempt...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Patent Prosecution Tool Kit: The Changing Face of Non-Obviousness

It is difficult to think of a case that has had more influence on patent practice than KSR v. Teleflex (550 U.S. 398 (2007)). In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the established practice that an invention could not be...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Summer 2018

Fenwick & West LLP on

In This Issue - US Taxation of IP After Tax Reform - U.S. taxation of intellectual property has become astoundingly more complex after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The new rules are so complex that the IRS and Treasury...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - December 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Claims Directed to Methods for Streaming Audiovisual Data Held Unpatentable Under § 101 - In Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Communications, Appeal Nos. 2016-2531, 2016-2532, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | April 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Patentee’s Unnecessarily Broad Prosecution Disclaimer Affirmed by Federal Circuit - In Technology Properties Limited LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-1306, -1307, -1309, -1310, -1311, the Federal...more

Mintz - Employment Viewpoints

Supreme Court Confirms Deferential Standard of Review for EEOC Subpoenas

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court confirmed that federal appeals courts should apply a deferential standard of review to federal district court determinations regarding the legal sufficiency of EEOC subpoenas....more

Holland & Knight LLP

Supreme Court: District Court EEOC Subpoena Enforcement Decisions Subject to Abuse of Discretion

Holland & Knight LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on April 3, 2017, in McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a case which presented the question of what the appropriate standard of appellate...more

Fisher Phillips

Supreme Court Limits EEOC Subpoena Power

Fisher Phillips on

In a 7 to 1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that courts of appeals should largely defer to lower courts’ decisions when policing subpoenas issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). By...more

Winstead PC

Standard of Review for Claim Construction on Appeal

Winstead PC on

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court provided guidance on the standard of review for claim construction on appeal in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 12-854. The Court held “[w]hen reviewing a district...more

McDermott Will & Emery

On Remand, Federal Circuit Comes Around to Supreme Court’s Way of Thinking

Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. - On a remand from the Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of the sufficiency of infringement evidence, affirmed a district...more

11 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide