Final Judgment

News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of Missouri Holds No Right to an Immediate Appeal from an Interlocutory Order Overruling a Motion to Intervene as a...

State ex rel. Koster v. ConocoPhillips Company, 2016 WL 3554339 (Mo.banc June 28, 2016), abrogating Eckhoff v. Eckhoff, 242 S.W.3d 466 (Mo.App. W.D. 2008), Coon ex rel. Coon v. American Compressed Steel, 133 S.W.3d 75...more

Binding Claim Construction Rulings Pre- Teva Vs. Post -Teva

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that clear error review applies to factual determinations underlying district court claim constructions. There has been much discussion about the...more

Should You Appeal?

The trial is over. Things did not go as had been hoped, and an adverse judgment has been entered. An appeal is a given, right? Not necessarily. Although in most civil cases, there is an automatic right to an appeal from...more

Wetlands Determinations - Uncertainty for the Clean Water Rule?

On May 31, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. holding that approved judicial determinations as to the presence of wetlands issued by the...more

Supreme Court’s Cuozzo Decision Endorses AIA Trial Proceedings, But Preserves Key Roles for both the PTAB and Federal Courts in...

In Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,[i] the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the patent owner’s challenge to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s implementation of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act’s new post grant proceedings....more

Supreme Court Decides Two Key Aspects of IPR in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more

NC Attorney General Reaches $9 Milllion Settlement With "American Indian Business" Western Sky Over Usurious Loans

You will remember the North Carolina Attorney General's lawsuit against Western Sky Fin'l, LLC. It generated an opinion from the Business Court last year in which Judge McGuire enjoined the Defendants from making further high...more

Cuozzo V. Lee: Supreme Court Affirmed That Claims Should Be Given Their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation In Inter Partes Review

On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more

Supreme Court Upholds the PTAB’s Status Quo in Cuozzo

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more

Supreme Court Maintains Status Quo on Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation Test and Non-Appealability of Institution Decisions

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee, No. 15-4461, an appeal of an institution and cancellation decision in the first-ever petition for inter partes review...more

Supreme Court Defers to the Patent Office on Institution and Management of Post-Grant Proceedings

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, the Supreme Court handed a victory to the Patent Office, affirming its broad discretion in the institution and management of post-issuance proceedings created by the Leahy-Smith...more

Supreme Court Affirms Cuozzo – Leaving in Place BRI and Judicial Review Limitation for IPR Proceedings

In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s holdings on claim construction and the scope of judicial review in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding....more

Supreme Court Defers to Patent Office on IPR Procedure, Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee

The United States Supreme Court decided today that: (1) the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) acted within its rulemaking authority by adopting the rule that patent claims must be given their “broadest...more

Supreme Court Affirms USPTO Claim Construction Test

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee. The Court unanimously held the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can give claims in inter partes...more

Supreme Court Affirms “Broadest Reasonable Interpretation” Claim Construction Standard and Limited Appeals For AIA Trials

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446. The Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the USPTO acted within its...more

Supreme Court Affirms Broader Claim Construction Standard in IPRs

PTAB’s Institution Decision Remains Largely Unreviewable - What You Need To Know - Summary - In its first case addressing an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), the Supreme Court’s In re Cuozzo decision unanimously...more

Board Not Limited to Prior Art in the Grounds, as Long as Patent Owner Had Notice

In Genzyme Therapeutic Products Limited v. Biomarin Pharmaceutical, Inc., [2015-1720, 2015-1721](June 14, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions in IPR2013-00534 and IPR2013-00537 that certain claims of ...more

First PGR Final Written Decisions – Look a Lot Like IPR/CBM Decisions

Despite the overwhelming popularity of IPR proceedings since their inception, about three and a half years ago, Post Grant Review has, to date, been little used. There are probably valid reasons for this low popularity,...more

And That’s Final . . .

A second Office Action on the merits should be final, except where the examiner introduces a new ground of rejection that was not necessitated by either amendment or an information disclosure statement. This is in accord...more

The Supreme Court Holds that Army Corps’ Jurisdictional Determinations are Final Actions Subject to Judicial Review

On May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the US Supreme Court unanimously held that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) approved jurisdictional determination (JD) is a final agency action...more

California Environmental Law & Policy Update - June 2016

Environmental and Policy Focus - U.S. Supreme Court allows pre-permit challenges to approved jurisdictional determinations - Allen Matkins - May 31 - In a major new legal development for the Clean Water Act's...more

Supreme Court Sides with Property Owners: Jurisdictional Determination is Reviewable

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court decided that Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable. This decision leaves open the question of whether other types of administrative decisions are immediately...more

Unanimous Supreme Court Sides With Property Owners In Clean Water Act Row

Introduction - On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that continues a trend of judicial skepticism toward federal agency efforts to avoid judicial review of agency permitting and related...more

US Supreme Court Holds US Army Corps Clean Water Act Determinations Reviewable

Decision allows landowners to challenge in court a US Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that a property is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act....more

Supreme Court: Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Determinations Challengeable in Federal Court

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., No. 15-290, slip op., 578 U.S. ___ (2016) that approved jurisdictional determinations (JDs) issued by...more

112 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

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

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×