News & Analysis as of

Will the Supreme Court Take a Stand on Standing in BP Case?

It is axiomatic that to certify a class, plaintiffs must show all members satisfy Article III standing and Rule 23 requirements. While federal courts "do not require each member of a class to submit evidence of personal...more

Mind the Statutory Gap (aka A Jurisdictional Mess)

As we all know, on June 9 of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency vs. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 189 L. Ed. 2d 83 (2014), which we had hoped would resolve the open...more

The Supreme Court Resolves a Circuit Split Regarding Standing to Sue for False Advertising Under the Lanham Act

In Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (March 25, 2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that "to invoke the Lanham Act’s cause of action for false advertising, a plaintiff must plead (and ultimately...more

Supreme Court Decides Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, holding that a credible threat of enforcement of a law is sufficient to establish an Article III injury in fact....more

Supreme Court Establishes a New Test for False Advertising Standing Under Lanham Act

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., holding that a two-prong analysis comprised of the "zone-of-interests" test and a "proximate-cause"...more

U.S. Supreme Court Will Decide Key IP Cases in 2014

IP continues to be a hot area of the law at the Supreme Court, with many IP cases recently argued or scheduled for argument in 2014. Below is a quick glimpse at several of these cases, including the potential impact of...more

U.S. Supreme Court Expands Scope of Potential Plaintiffs in Lanham Act False Advertising Claims – No Longer Limited to Actual...

One of the several claims available to plaintiffs under the Lanham Act is a claim for “false advertising.” Section 1125(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act states that... (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or...more

MarkIt to Market - April 2014

The April issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to MarketTM newsletter contains a cautionary tale regarding use of social media, a clarified test for false advertising standing, updates to Canada's Trade-marks Act, and an updated...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Standing Requirements in False Advertising Lawsuits

On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified who has the right to assert a federal claim for false advertising. In a unanimous ruling, the Court established that one company can sue another under the Lanham Act, the federal...more

The Supreme Court Redefines Standing Test for Lanham Act False Advertising Claims

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court clarified the standing requirements for false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act. In Lexmark Intl., Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the Court, in...more

SCOTUS Clears District Court Jam Over Test for Standing in False Advertising Cases

Printing has not been this interesting since Dwight Schrute and Jim Halpert bickered over paper sales and Michael Scott told off-color jokes in “The Office.” Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the laser...more

Non-Direct Competitors May Sue Under the Lanham Act, Doctrine of Prudential Standing Eliminated

The Supreme Court of the United States swept away the different standards for Lanham Act prudential standing previously applied by the courts of appeals, and expressly discarded the amorphous concept of prudential standing in...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standing Requirements for Lanham Act False Advertising Claim

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held Tuesday that a plaintiff may bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), even where the plaintiff is not a direct competitor of the defendant. A false...more

U.S. Supreme Court Standardizes Standing Analysis for False-Advertising Claims Under the Lanham Act

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court held that false-advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act are not limited to direct competitors of the allegedly false advertiser. Instead, the Act authorizes any person to bring an...more

Stern Revisited, Testing the Jurisdictional Authority of the Bankruptcy Courts and Beyond

In January, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison. Executive Benefits is viewed by many as the sequel to Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 180 L. Ed. 2d 475 (2011). In...more

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari for Standing to Sue under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act

The United States Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to decide whether Congress had the authority to confer Article III standing to sue when the plaintiff suffers no concrete harm and alleges as an injury based on a...more

U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in EFTA standing case

We have previously written about Charvat v. Mutual First Federal Credit Union, the case in which the Eighth Circuit held last year that denial of a statutory right is a sufficient injury to confer standing, even if the injury...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Standing For False Advertising Cases

On March 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision resolving an important issue that has implications for companies seeking redress for false advertising and disparagement. In Lexmark...more

Cert Petition Asks Supreme Court To Decide Whether Congress Can Allow Uninjured Plaintiffs To Sue In Federal Court

For years, defendants have argued that federal courts may not entertain class-action lawsuits when the plaintiff does not allege that he or she suffered any concrete personal harm and instead relies solely on an “injury in...more

Once Again, Clapper Defeats Data Breach Class Action

Article III standing has once again proved to be an insurmountable hurdle for data breach class action plaintiffs whose personal information hasn’t been misused. In Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., an Ohio federal...more

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in POM’s Attack on FDCA/Lanham Act Preemption

On Friday, the Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of Pom Wonderful in its Lanham Act false advertising case against Coca-Cola. Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012), cert granted, ___...more

Inside The Courts - December 2013 | Volume 5 | Issue 4

In This Issue: *U.S. SUPREME COURT: - Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., No. 13-317 (U.S. Nov. 15, 2013) Lawson v. FMR LLC, No. 12-3 (U.S. Nov. 12, 2013) - Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice, No....more

CFPB files second amicus brief in First American RESPA case

Last year, many observers were disappointed when the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, the case that presented the issue of whether a plaintiff who brings a RESPA claim has...more

US Supreme Court Appears Ready to Address GHG Issue Left Unresolved by Court of Appeals

On October 15, 2013, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the challenge to EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations. The Court consolidated six different appeals from the decision of the United States Court of Appeals...more

Anti-GMO Groups Ask Supreme Court To Reconsider Standing To Bring Declaratory Judgment Action Against GMO Patent Holder

Recently, a group of 73 organic and conventional farmers, seed businesses, and public advocacy groups petitioned the Supreme Court to review the Federal Circuit’s decision that the petitioners lack standing to pursue their...more

65 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3