Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
A January 15, 2025, U.S. Supreme Court opinion brought welcome news for employers defending claims of worker exempt status misclassification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In the case at issue, E.M.D. Sales, Inc....more
ERISA breach of fiduciary duty class actions have surged in recent years, prompting courts to grapple with complex questions about how these claims should be pleaded and litigated. Among the most consequential and unresolved...more
In a unanimous opinion decided January 15, 2025, E.M.D. Sales, Inc., v. Carrerra et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the less stringent preponderance of evidence standard, instead of the clear and convincing evidence...more
On February 26, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which is a case that will determine whether a plaintiff bringing a so-called reverse discrimination claim (where, for...more
On February 26, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth Services, which questioned whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals correctly decided that a heterosexual plaintiff should have...more
Last month the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) delivered a pro-employer ruling on the standard of proof required under certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States rejected a higher standard of proof for employers to demonstrate that an employee is exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), providing clarity for FLSA disputes across the...more
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court for the United States issued an opinion interpreting the standard of proof employers must meet to establish the applicability of an exemption to the overtime requirements of the Fair...more
On January 15, 2025, the United States Supreme Court ruled in E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Carrera et al., that the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (the “FLSA”) exemptions do not require a heightened burden of proof. The decision...more
Last week, in a highly anticipated ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, Case No. 23-217, concluding that a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to...more
Real World Impact: In a unanimous decision issued on January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the “preponderance of evidence” standard applies to employers seeking to prove an employee exemption...more
Employers do not have to meet a heightened standard of proof to establish that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the U.S. Supreme Court held...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has set oral argument for November 5, 2024, in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera. The issue before the court is what standard of proof employers must satisfy to demonstrate that a Fair Labor Standards...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
The U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on April 23, 2020, by unanimously holding in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Group, Inc., et al. that a brand owner is not required to prove that a trademark infringer acted...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 U.S. trademark litigation, the focus is typically on injunctive relief: The plaintiff wants the defendant to cease use of the infringing mark before the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed or the strength of the mark is...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act does not require a showing of willful infringement to justify an award of defendant’s profits to the plaintiff. Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
In a recent unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court brought some welcome clarity to the question of whether willfulness is required in order to recover an infringer’s profits under...more
On April 23, the US Supreme Court resolved a six-six circuit split over whether a defendant must have willfully infringed a trademark for a plaintiff to obtain as a remedy the infringer’s profits. In Romag Fasteners, Inc. v....more
Late last month, in a landmark decision heralded by brand owners, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Romag Fasteners, Inc v Fossil Group, Inc that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a...more
In a decision some believe may generate more trademark infringement litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a trademark owner does not have to prove a defendant acted willfully to receive a profits remedy in...more
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), resolved a circuit court split by confirming that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement...more
White & Case Technology Newsflash - Willful infringement is no longer required for trademark owners to recover infringers' profits. In Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Group, the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding circuit...more
On April 23, 2020, Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered a unanimous opinion in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., clarifying that a Lanham Act provision does not require a plaintiff to prove that acts of infringement are...more