Supreme Court of the United States

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
News & Analysis as of

Intellectual Property and Technology News - December 2014 (Global)

In This Issue: - Fundamental Reform Ahead For European Patent Law - Patentability of Isolated Nucleic Acid - Patent Reform – Is It Working? - Right To Privacy In Japan - Supreme Court Corner - The FTC...more

Federal Circuit Review - December 2014

Patent Claims on Media Distribution Over Internet Not Patentable - In ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. v. HULU, LLC, Appeal No. 2010-1544, the Federal Circuit affirmed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because a...more

Health Reform + Related Health Policy News - December 2014, Issue 1

In This Issue: - Top News ..Congress Passes Omnibus Spending Package ..HRSA Cancels Plan for 340B ‘Mega Reg’; Congress Weighs Options ..Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to ACA...more

Supreme Court Corner: Q4 2014

KIMBLE V. MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC. Patent Licensing - Cert. Pending - Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects...more

No Proof Necessary: SCOTUS Rules Defendant’s Notice Of Removal Under CAFA Need Not Include Evidence of The Amount In Controversy

On December 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split in holding that a defendant need not supply evidence of the amount in controversy in its notice of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act...more

More Misinformation Regarding the Patent System and Non-Practicing Entities

The press has been all too eager to decry the so-called "broken" U.S. patent system and the alleged "scourge" of non-practicing entities (NPEs). However, few if any articles attempt to provide an even-handed analysis of...more

Supreme Court: Evidence of Amount in Controversy Not Required at Removal

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court held that a defendant removing a putative class action from state to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) need not submit evidence to...more

Supreme Court Confirms That A Notice Of Removal Requires Only A “Plausible Allegation” That The Amount In Controversy Has Been Met

The Supreme Court has held that a notice of removal requires only a “plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold,” and confirmed that a notice of removal need not include evidence...more

The FTC gets activist post-Actavis

In 2013, the FTC left its mark on the pharmaceutical industry when the Supreme Court ruled in FTC v. Actavis that settlement agreements for patent infringement suits between branded and generic drug companies are not immune...more

CFPB soliciting suggestions for its amicus brief program

The Consumer Law & Policy Blog has reproduced a copy of a letter sent yesterday by the CFPB seeking suggested cases for the CFPB’s amicus brief program. ...more

ACA Outlook: What Will 2015 Hold for the Affordable Care Act and Employers?

For many employers, the effective date of the Affordable Care Act's "play-or-pay" mandate is only weeks away. The impending deadline comes amid questions about the future—and perhaps viability—of the law itself. Entering...more

Supreme Court: Companies Fighting State Class Actions Can Remove to Federal Court Without Evidence of Damages

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) has found its way to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court several times in the last two years, as plaintiffs and defendants seek to define the parameters of the federal law...more

Will the Supreme Court Remove Brulotte’s Shadow Over Patent Licensing?

Fifty years ago, in Brulotte v. Thys Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the collection of royalties after a patent’s expiration constitutes per se patent misuse. Although criticized by scholars, antitrust agencies, and the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Time Spent Undergoing Mandatory Security Screenings is Not Compensable Under the FLSA

In a decision that will certainly benefit employers facing claims of pre-shift and post-shift off-the-clock work, on December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that employees’ time spent waiting to...more

4 Key Lessons from Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk

While helpful to some employers, Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk does not fundamentally change the law of compensable working time. On December 9, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision...more

Supreme Court rules employees not entitled to pay for time spent in security screenings

The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that warehouse employees were not entitled to compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for time spent waiting to pass through anti-theft security screenings after their shifts...more

Investment Management Update

In This Issue: - SEC Announces First-of-Its-Kind Whistleblower Award To an Audit and Compliance Professional - SEC Issues No-Action Letter To Allow for Amendment of a Sub-Advisory Agreement without Shareholder...more

Does the Pregnancy Discrimination Act Require Light Duty Assignments for Pregnant Workers?

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Young v. UPS, a case that could drastically impact accommodation policies for pregnant employees. Up until now, courts widely held that employers could offer light-duty...more

The United States Supreme Court Holds That a Defendant’s Notice of Removal Need Only Include a “Plausible Allegation” That the...

On December 15, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC, et al. v. Owens.1 Writing for the 5 – 4 majority, Justice Ginsberg held that a defendant’s notice of removal pursuant to...more

Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules That Security Screening Time is Not Compensable Under FLSA

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an employer was not required to pay its non-exempt employees for time spent waiting to go through security screenings at the end of the workday. In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc....more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Post-Shift Employee Security Screenings are Not Compensable Under the FLSA

On December 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk holding that employees' time spent waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not...more

Supreme Court Rules That Time Spent Clearing a Security Checkpoint Is Not Compensable Under the FLSA

In Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 2014 WL 6885951(U.S. Dec. 9, 2014), the Supreme Court held that time employees spend waiting to undergo and undergoing security screenings is not compensable work time under the...more

Supreme Court Finds that Post-Shift Employee Security Screenings Noncompensable Activity Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Last week, in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, the United States Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous opinion holding that post-shift employee security screenings were noncompensable activities under the Fair...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Class Action Fairness Act’s Removal Requirement: 'Liberal Rules' Do Not Require Evidence of Amount in...

Class action defendants need not include evidence regarding the amount in controversy when removing a case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), thanks to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in...more

Supreme Court 2014 Patent Preview

On average, the U.S. Supreme Court historically hears fewer than one patent case each term. For example, in the 14 years between 1982 and 1995, the Court decided only five patent cases. In the seven years between 1995 and...more

3,527 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 142