Direct Examination: To Lead or Not to Lead
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 416: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 224: Listen and Learn -- Service of Process (Civ Pro)
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Practicing Before the U.S. Supreme Court | Kannon Shanmugam | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
Amended Rules Five Months Later: Early Trends in Case Law and What It Means
Proposed FRCP Changes: Effect on eDiscovery, RIM & IG (CLE)
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s summary judgment ruling based on a claim construction error because nothing in the claims or specification of the asserted patent supported the...more
Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions: In Re NITRO FLUIDS L.L.C. [ORDER] (2020-0142, 10/28/28) (REYNA, WALLACH, and CHEN) - Reyna, J. The Court considered a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking transfer from the...more
In this four-part series, we take a look forward at the cases, legislation, and other trends that are likely to have a significant impact on intellectual property law and practice in 2020. In the first two parts of the...more
Ten years ago, in an effort to create greater predictability for patent litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the District enacted Local Patent Rules ("LPR") This annotated version of the LPRs is released in honor...more
Addressing patent eligibility under 35 USC § 101, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court’s decision for failure to address the parties’ claim construction dispute before ruling...more
Recently, in a patent infringement action pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, Webasto Thermo & Comfort N. Am., Inc. v. BesTop, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-13456, Order No. 209 (E.D. Mich. May 20, 2019) (Borman, J.), the court...more
After having its complaint for patent infringement dismissed for failure to state a claim and being denied its request to file an amended complaint in the Middle District of Georgia, Disc Disease Solutions turned to the...more
In an effort to create greater predictability for patent litigation in the Northern District of Illinois, the District enacted Local Patent Rules ("LPR") effective as of October 1, 2009. This annotated version of the LPRs...more
Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, Appeal No. 17-1036 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 27, 2018) In Nalco Company v. Chem-Mod, LLC, the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision to dismiss Nalco Company’s complaint for failure to...more
Shearman & Sterling’s IP litigation team has published its quarterly newsletter. The newsletter covers a number of current IP topics, including a look at the America Invents Act, five years in; the U.S. International Trade...more
DISTRICT COURT - Expert’s Failure to Disclose Certain Materials Relied upon in Forming Opinion Warrants Mistrial - On February 29, 2016, Judge Robert Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia declared a mistrial as...more
Amendments To Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Announced – Effective December 1, 2015, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) have been amended with respect to pleading requirements and discovery. Notably, the FRCP do...more
The field of patent law is in a state of flux. Just four years after the America Invents Act (“AIA”) went into effect, Congress is taking up the issue once again, this time seeking to pass legislation to curb abusive patent...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
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
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
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 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
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
On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854, 574 U.S.__ (2015), holding that the Federal Circuit must apply a "clear error" standard when...more
Supreme Court Building #3It has escaped almost no one's notice that the Supreme Court has spent the past decade or so being much more involved in patent law than in preceding twenty years. Evident but perhaps less discussed...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 of issues arising in claim construction. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz,...more