Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
Effectively responding to class litigation doesn’t necessarily mean simply preparing an answer or perfunctory motion to dismiss, diving headlong into class discovery, investing in full-fledged combat on the merits of the...more
Towards the end of 2014, three federal courts explored developing issues under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109 et. seq. Below is a summary of three...more
A New York federal district court recently issued a strong denunciation of the practice of debtors attempting to induce debt collectors into committing violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Finding...more
Addressing the location of a deposition of patent owner’s declarant, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) concluded that, absent an agreement between the parties to...more
Growing up a Yankee fan, I hated Wade Boggs, the third baseman for the Boston Red Sox. (Never mind for the moment that Boggs later played for the Yankees.) Boggs controlled the tone of the game because he controlled the...more
I attended LegalTech 2015 this year in New York. It was a great seminar and another well done project by ALM.
One wrinkle, though....more
Over the past year, bar associations and courts throughout the country found themselves addressing more and more issues related to electronic discovery. The states where Lewis Roca Rothgerber has offices were no exception to...more
In the fiercely competitive world of professional sailing, every second matters. And, as with any sport, competitors look to gain any advantage they can by getting their hands on the latest equipment, fine-tuned to give them...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
In order to obtain a an injunction under federal law, the moving party has to show each of the following...
(i) It has a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim.
(ii) Without injunctive relief, it would...more
Federal courts in California have developed new rules and guidelines.
The rules of civil procedure are supposed to be "construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action...more
In September 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 538 (Hill) into law. This bill fundamentally rewrote a key anti-fraud provision of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968 – Corporations Code Section 25401. At the time, I...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
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., U.S. No. 13-854 (Jan. 20, 2015) -
Answering the long debated question of what deference the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should give in reviewing district court...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
In Barlow v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 772 F.3d 1001 (4th Cir. 2014), an en banc decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considered two cases where plaintiffs allegedly misrepresented their intent to...more
In Landers v. Quality Communications (9th Cir. 12-15890-1/26/15), the Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's order dismissing plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure finding...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 U.S. Supreme Court handed down its first patent decision of the current term, rejecting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s long-standing practice of reviewing district court patent...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
Back to Top