Connecticut Collections: How to get paid if you are owed money? Part 2: Prejudgment Remedy ("PJR")
In a split decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s award of more than $5 million in attorneys’ fees, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the...more
On June 15, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana that bilateral arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) may require arbitration of California Private...more
Alfred Siegel v. John Fitzgerald, III, No. 21-441: This case, involving the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (“BJA”) applicable to Chapter 11 bankruptcies, presents the following question: Whether the BJA violates the...more
United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.Com B. V., Case No. 19–46 (2020). Adding “.com” to a generic description that is not otherwise capable of being trademarked is permissible if consumers do not view the name...more
Liu v. Securities And Exchange Commission, Case No. 18–1501 (2020). Equitable relief, including disgorgement, is permissible under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., so long as it does not exceed a...more
The consequences of an order or judgement being final or interlocutory are enormous. An order from an interlocutory order requires leave since these orders are not appealable as of right. In addition, a failure to obtain...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when a final decision has been issued in one of several consolidated civil cases, the losing party can immediately appeal, even if other of the consolidated cases are ongoing. Hall v....more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that a federal procedural rule that allows a district court to extend an appeal deadline by no more than 30 days is a non-jurisdictional, mandatory claims processing...more
In a victory for class action defendants, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker puts an end to plaintiffs' manufactured appeals as of right from denials of class certification. The Court's...more
Facts - On June 12, 2017, in Microsoft Corporation v. Baker, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review orders striking class allegations after the named plaintiffs...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker. Baker resolves a Circuit split concerning whether a plaintiff, after losing a class certification battle, can effectively manufacture...more
The Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, has held that 28 U.S.C. § 1291 does not confer appellate jurisdiction over an otherwise interlocutory order on class certification following plaintiffs’ voluntary...more
The United States Supreme Court today ended the controversial tactic of self-inflicted finality, wherein a class action plaintiff that has been denied certification and denied 23f review creates its own “final judgment” by...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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