Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Retirement of “Chevron Doctrine” Exposed Vulnerability of OFCCP’s Overreaching Interpretations of Some of its Rules
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 5: What the End of Agency Deference Means for the Healthcare Industry
#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB's Proposed Overdraft Rule — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Overruling Chevron: A Potential Double-Edged Sword for the Financial Services Industry — The Consumer Finance Podcast
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB’s Proposed Overdraft Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework Part I
#WorkforceWednesday: Federal Agencies Pushing Boundaries Met with Backlash, Impacts of SCOTUS Chevron Deference - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument
Please see full Newsletter below for more information....more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review (IPR) cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for the USPTO? In June, the...more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law in 2011, introduced inter partes review (“IPR”), which allows parties to challenge the validity of patent claims in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
In Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, No. 2018-1400 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 18, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that the “clear and unambiguous text of” 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) does not authorize “same-party joinder” and...more
It's often said that hard cases make bad law. And that is what had happened here: faced with an unreasonable number of potentially asserted claims in litigation, and a Plaintiff not required to identify which of those...more
In a case explaining what comprises an “applicant delay” in the context of a patent term adjustment (PTA), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sided with the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ruling that the...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
INTRA-CELLULAR THERAPIES, INC v. IANCU - Before Wallach, Chen, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary: If a proper reply to a final Office Action is not...more
The Federal Circuit recently asked the government to submit an amicus brief to address “what, if any, deference should be afforded to decisions of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board Precedential Opinion Panel (‘POP’), and...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) erred in calculating a patent term adjustment (PTA) for a patent covering an oral osmotic form of an antihypertensive drug,...more
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., Appeal Nos. 2017-1698, et al. (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) (unsealed July 24, 2018) In a lengthy decision on an issue of first impression, the Federal Circuit addressed the...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018). SAS involved a challenge to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (Board) practice of instituting inter partes...more
On April 24th, the Supreme Court decided two important cases related to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for reconsidering the prior grant of a patent – Oil States Energy...more
This timely and fast-moving webinar provides insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the recently issued Supreme Court decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute...more
On April 24, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided two important cases that directly impact inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and patent litigation as a whole. In Oil States Energy...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday on two closely monitored cases impacting how patents could be challenged. In the more high-profile case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the inter partes review (IPR) process...more
A recent decision calls into question the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) regulation providing that B delay stops accruing as soon as a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) is filed. In March 2018, the PTO declined to...more
In Novartis v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit agreed with the USPTO that “time spent in a continued examination” does not count towards the three years the USPTO is allotted to examine a patent before if it must...more
On October 4, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, overruled an earlier panel decision and found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had been impermissibly placing the burden of...more
In a closely followed case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SAS Institute Inc., a cross-office, cross-practice Jones Day team has challenged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice to elect to institute...more
In a much anticipated decision, the Federal Circuit has narrowly decided that a patent owner moving to amend claims during an inter partes review (IPR) does not have the burden of persuasion that the claims are patentable....more
On October 4, 2017, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, placing the burden of persuasion on the petitioner to prove the invalidity of amended claims in post-grant...more
On December 9, 2016, the Federal Circuit held an en banc hearing in In re Aqua Products. As noted earlier, one of the questions posed for en banc review had a distinctly administrative law tone. That question asked whether...more
This article contains important information relating to recent developments in patent law and, as such, is intended for an audience that either currently owns a patent or is in the process of obtaining one. The Supreme...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 3369425 (June 20, 2016) upheld the Patent Office’s long-held policy of construing a patent claim according to its broadest...more