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

Supreme Court Rules Trademark Tacking Is a Question for Juries

The tacking doctrine allows trademark owners to make slight modifications to their marks over time without an attendant loss of rights. Specifically, owners can claim priority in a mark based on the first use date of a...more

Supreme Court Calls for Greater Deference to District Court Claim Construction

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

Supreme Court Holds That “Tacking” Inquiry Is Generally a Jury Question

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211. The issue presented was whether the judge or the jury should determine whether two trademarks may be “tacked” for purposes of...more

Supreme Court’s Trademark Tacking Decision: Possible Impact on Likelihood of Confusion?

The Supreme Court’s decision that juries should decide whether consumers would consider two marks to be the same for the purpose of trademark tacking may help resolve a split in the circuits as to whether the likelihood of...more

Supreme Court Hears Trademark Cases on the Preclusive Effect of TTAB Decisions and the Tacking Doctrine

In its October 2014 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two trademark cases. Both cases have practical significance for trademark litigants because they have the potential to change the way parties approach...more

Supreme Court Revives LIBOR Antitrust Appeal in Gelboim et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al.

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a highly anticipated decision in a LIBOR-based antitrust class action suit allowing a plaintiff to immediately take a direct appeal from an order dismissing...more

Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Revises Standard for Appellate Review of Patent Claim Construction Decisions

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

What's Next? Some Consequences of the Teva v. Sandoz Decision

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

Supreme Court Clarifies Timing of Appeals in MDL Cases

On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the definitive rule governing the timing of appeals from a multidistrict litigation proceeding (MDL). The Court held that plaintiffs in actions centralized in an MDL whose...more

Supreme Court Rules that Trademark “Tacking” Is a Question for the Jury

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211, unanimously held that whether different versions of a trademark may be “tacked” for purposes of determining priority is a jury...more

Patent Claim Construction Now Subject to Hybrid Review

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

Supreme Court Clarified Standard of Review for Patent Claim Construction – Subsidiary Factual Findings are to be Reviewed for...

In a recent case, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Et Al. V. Sandoz, Inc. Et Al., the Supreme Court of the United States clarified that subsidiary issues of fact determined by a District Court during patent claim construction...more

Supreme Court Backs Whistleblowing Air Marshall

On January 21st, the Supreme Court affirmed a former air marshal's right to whistleblower protection relating to his leaking of air security plans to the media. The 7-2 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts in the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Declines Review of California’s Iskanian Decision – California State and Federal Courts Remain Divided on PAGA...

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review California high court’s landmark decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, which held that arbitration agreements with mandatory class waivers are generally...more

Supreme Court Calls for Some Deference in Claim Construction Standard of Review

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., finding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure call for some deference in the claim construction standard of...more

Supreme Court ends Fed Circuit’s lone reign over claim construction (some of the time at least)

Just like an older sibling forced to share with a new younger brother or sister, we are all likely familiar with authority stepping in and forcing us to share our previously unchecked power or benefits with others. That’s...more

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Overturns De Novo Review of Patent Claim Construction

On Tuesday, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed long-standing Federal Circuit precedent under which patent claim construction was reviewed wholly de novo. Specifically, the Court held...more

Supreme Court Holds Trademark Tacking is a Question, like any Inquiry from the Perspective of an Ordinary Purchaser or Consumer,...

Background: In a priority contest between trademark owners, the owner of a mark is entitled to “tack on” earlier use of a similar mark provided that the two marks are sufficiently similar. Some circuits treated the question...more

No Waiver Of PAGA Representative Claims (Yet)

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in connection with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angleles, LLC. Had the Court heard the Iskanian case, it was expected to...more

The Year Ahead in Patent Law - 2015

With the advent of the America Invents Act (AIA), public perception of frivolous patent litigation, frequently surrounding cases filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs), has received increasing legislative attention. Although...more

Supreme Court Endorses De Novo Review of Claim Construction, But Holds that Subsidiary Facts Underlying Claim Construction are...

Background: Patent claim construction findings are a key aspect to patent infringement cases. Previously, the Federal Circuit reviewed the entire claim construction issue, including any subsidiary facts, de novo....more

Supreme Court Holds That Trademark Tacking is an Issue for the Jury

In trademark law, rights in a trademark are determined by the date of the mark’s first use in commerce, and the party who first uses the mark in commerce has priority over other users. Under the doctrine of "tacking," under...more

Supreme Court Starts 2015 Off with Focus on Facts Shaping Intellectual Property Disputes

The U.S. Supreme Court kicked 2015 off with an intellectual property bang, issuing two important rulings earlier this week. Both decisions focus on the facts underpinning intellectual property disputes—who decides them and...more

Who A-Tacks a Decision on Tacking? U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Tacking Trademarks to Gain Earlier First Use Is a Question Of...

It’s a historic week for trademarks!  On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, which marks the high court’s first substantive ruling on trademarks in more...more

In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. And Hana Financial, Inc., The Supreme Court Issues Two IP Decisions – One Deferring To Trial...

This week, the Court rendered two IP opinions in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854 (argued October 15, 2014) and Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211 (argued December 3, 2014) . Teva...more

3,640 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 146