On January 5, 2021, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law two new local laws affecting fast food workers which, among other things: •prohibit fast food employers from discharging, indefinitely suspending or...more
The substantial powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have recently received renewed attention following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB. That case held that the CFPB was...more
In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which held that the CFPB’s leadership structure violates the separation of powers mandated by the U.S....more
The CFPB has filed a declaration with the Ninth Circuit in which Director Kraninger stated that she has ratified the Bureau’s decisions to issue a civil investigative demand to Seila Law, deny Seila Law’s request to modify or...more
Welcome to Consumer Law Hinsights?a monthly compilation of nationwide consumer protection cases of interest to financial services and accounts receivable management companies. This edition highlights our interactive COVID-19...more
In June, the Supreme Court struck down the leadership structure of the CFPB as unconstitutional. (The case is Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, No. 19-7 (June 29, 2020), and the decision is here.) The case resolves a long-simmering...more
On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ("Supreme Court") ruled that the single-director leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB" or "Bureau") violates the separation of powers...more
Welcome! Welcome to the new format of All Consuming . We listened to the feedback. A newsletter filled with long articles gives the detailed information some are looking for but becomes another thing that others have to...more
On March 23, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc in Arthrex. See Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, Order Denying Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, Dkt....more
As we previously covered, on October 31, 2019, the Federal Circuit held in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, that PTAB judges (i.e., administrative patent judges, or APJs) were principal officers appointed...more
While the rest of us wait on the Federal Circuit’s decision on the rehearing petitions in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., there are signs that the Federal Circuit judges themselves may already have moved on. In...more
In a recent decision, TAQA Bratani Limited & Ors v RockRose UKCS8 LLC [2020] EWHC 58 (Comm), the English High Court held that an express contractual right in a joint operating agreement for non-operators to remove the...more
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued for the first time...more
As we have previously discussed on this blog and elsewhere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew has generated significant discussion and controversy in the patent world. On December 16, both parties...more
For the Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) are appointed by the Secretary of Commerce in consultation with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. For an...more
This document provides a factual overview of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, discusses the court’s remedy, and addresses implications for litigants with Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases pending...more
On November 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered the parties in Polaris Innovations Lt. v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. to provide supplemental briefing addressing the...more
Fed Chair Powell was far from the main attraction on the Hill yesterday, but hey, let’s keep it on topic here and note his belief that the U.S. economy is performing well even as certain risks—including “sluggish growth...more
Last Thursday, the Federal Circuit found the appointments of Patent Trial and Appeal judges unconstitutional, in part because the judges do not receive sufficient oversight from the Director of the United States Patent and...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019) - In the most important case to affect America Invents Act review proceedings this year, the Federal Circuit...more
Yesterday October 31, 2019, a 3-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Judges Moore, Reyna, and Chen) issued a unanimous decision holding that the USPTO’s appointment practice for Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) violates the...more
n a decision with potential far-reaching implications, Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., the Federal Circuit held Thursday that appointments of Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...more
On Thursday, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that PTAB judges have to date been unconstitutional appointments. The panel thinks that it has cured that issue going forward by severing a portion of Title 35 that allows for...more
Yesterday, in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., a panel of the Federal Circuit unanimously held that the appointment scheme for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) is...more
In the final days of Missouri’s 2018 legislative session, lawmakers passed dozens of bills, including those related to changes to prevailing wage payments and to the merit system for state workers. As of May 30, 2018, those...more