Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

News & Analysis as of

Finding the Earliest and Least Expensive Exit From Financial Services Class Actions

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

A WARN Act Roundup: Jury Trial Rights, the Unforeseen Business Circumstances Defense, and the Single Employer Rule

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

New York Federal Court Denounces Debtor’s Attempt To Induce FDCPA Violation

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

Declarant Must Be Made Available for Deposition in the United States - Square, Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC

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

Taking Control of Class Actions From the Beginning

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

LegalTech 2015 — Not so much collaboration, cooperation or transparency

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

The Top Ten eDiscovery Developments of 2014 in the Mountain West and California

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

Former Licensee Knocks Wind Out Of Sail Manufacturer’s Trade Secrets Claims

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

Supreme Court: Claim Construction Is Subject to Hybrid Review - Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc.

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

Make Sure You Can Afford to Pay a Bond Before Seeking an Injunction

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

Planning for E-Discovery

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

Applying Today’s Statute To Yesterday’s Offer And Sale

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

Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation

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

Patent Claim Construction Subject to Hybrid Review Standard

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

Why Did the Supreme Court GVR the Shire Lialda Case?

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

The Fourth Circuit, En Banc, Addresses Removal / Remand Litigation

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

Employment Law Alert: Employee's Overtime Claim Fails Due to Lack of Facts

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

Supreme Court Cuts Out a Slice of the Federal Circuit’s De Novo Pie

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

The Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard for Reviewing Fact-finding in Claims Construction

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

Supreme Court Permits Appeal To Go Forward in LIBOR Antitrust Lawsuit

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

Supreme Court Orders Federal Circuit To Defer To District Court Factual Findings During Patent Claim Construction: Will Markman...

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

Teva Decision Will Be Felt in Future Patent Claim Construction Hearings

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

Teva v. Sandoz (USSC) – Standard for Appellate Review of Claim Construction Rulings

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

Supreme Court Changes Standard Of Review For Patent Claim Construction Rulings

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

Supreme Court Calls for Greater Deference to District Court Claim Construction

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

230 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 10