Proceso constituyente en Colombia Parte II
On March 26, 2025, Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Coke Morgan Stewart issued a memorandum (the Workload Memorandum) to all Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) of the Patent Trial and...more
Ex parte reexamination (EPRx) is a powerful tool that allows any party — including the patent owner — to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess the validity of an issued patent based on...more
On March 13, 2025, the Federal Official Gazette published the decree amending and repealing various provisions of the Amparo Law (the "Amendment"). Substance and Objectives of the Amendment - This amendment to the Amparo...more
On Friday afternoon, February 28, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a brief “bulletin” rescinding a memorandum issued by the former Director Kathy Vidal (“Vidal Memo”) providing guidance on...more
Citing forfeiture, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a complaint against the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). The complaint sought director review of a 2018 Patent Trial & Appeal Board...more
This is a continuation of the eleventh installment in a series of articles intended to provide the reader with a very high-level overview of the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of 1970 and the Occupational Safety and...more
On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an Alabama rule requiring claimants to first exhaust the state administrative appeals process before bringing due process claims over delays in their...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Heath, No. 23-1127: This case considers whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal...more
On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in three cases: Becerra v. Braidwood Management, Inc., No. 24-316: This case addresses the constitutionality of the U.S. Preventive Services...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) on May 3, 2024, reversed the U.S. Tax Court (USTC) in Alon Farhy v. Commissioner, No. 23-1179 (D.C. Cir. May 3, 2024) by holding that...more
USPTO News - On July 11, the USPTO Office of the Chief Economist released the 2022 updates to its Trademark Case Files Dataset and Trademark Assignment Dataset....more
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy to review a decision by the Fifth Circuit rejecting key aspects of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC or the...more
Late in the Trump administration, the Department of Labor issued final rules intended to distinguish between employees and independent contractors for purposes of qualification for overtime and minimum wage obligations under...more
If an employee is passed over for a promotion due to alleged harassment, does the failure to promote happen when the employer decides to promote someone else or when the successful candidate actually takes on the role? ...more
At the conclusion of the EEOC’s administrative process, if a discrimination Charge has not otherwise been resolved, the Agency issues an administrative decision finding either merit to the Charge or not. If the Agency...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
This article discusses aspects of ex parte appeals of patent applications before the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA). A patent applicant may appeal (submit a re-examination request) an examiner’s...more
On April 3, 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Fifth Circuit in EEOC v. Vantage Energy Services, Inc., No. 19-20541, clarified its interpretation of the relate-back doctrine for administrative charges. The Fifth Circuit...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more
Following up on a November 4th oral argument (accessible here) that focused on the Arthrex Appointments Clause issue, the Federal Circuit has requested additional briefing from Polaris, Kingston, and the U.S. regarding the...more
The Seventh Circuit recently held, in Fessenden v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co., that a plan administrator’s failure to meet a regulatory deadline by which to respond to a disability benefits claim appeal cost the...more
On June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an employee may be able to proceed with a federal discrimination lawsuit, even if the employee has not first filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment...more
On June 3, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not a jurisdictional bar to filing a lawsuit in court. The lawsuit involved an individual, Lois...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered an important decision limiting an employer’s ability to dismiss federal employment discrimination lawsuits under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Fort Bend County v....more
On Monday, June 3, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Fort Bend County v. Davis, unanimously finding that Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and that employers may forfeit...more