A Judicial Perspective on Using Technology at Oral Argument | Judge John Owens | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals - Daniels v. Fla Fish & Wildlife - fishing regulations, constitutional challenges, standing - Glover v. Ocwen Loan Serv - FDCPA, mortgage payment fees - Rosado v. Sec’y US Navy...more
Every month, Erise’s patent attorneys review the latest inter partes review cases and news to bring you the stories that you should know about: USPTO Director Vidal to Step Down - On November 12, Under Secretary of...more
LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, Appeal No. 2021-2348 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) - In a rare en banc opinion, the Federal Circuit overruled decades of prior precedent concerning the standard to...more
The Ninth Circuit recently struck a blow against plaintiffs’ attorneys’ ability to recover handsome attorney’s fee awards in class action settlements when there is little actual benefit to the class. In Lowery v Rhapsody...more
Last year saw courts, particularly federal courts, continue their close scrutiny of class action settlements to ensure that they are fair and reasonable to class members, and do not unfairly prioritize the interests of class...more
On January 13, 2023, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear two related cases in which it will decide for the first time whether and in what circumstances a foreign (non-U.S.) plaintiff may bring a civil action under...more
In a decision that may have far-reaching consequences, a divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit ruled that incentive awards to named plaintiffs—which are routine in TCPA and other class action settlements—are improper. See...more
You need to read Johnson v. NPAS Solutions, LLC. This recent decision from the 11th Circuit fundamentally changes the rules of obtaining approval for class action settlements. Johnson’s introduction emphasizes that the...more
For years, class action settlements typically have included incentive payments to named plaintiffs. The payments usually represent a very small percentage of the overall settlement payout, and are designed to compensate named...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Iancu v. NantKwest to resolve a circuit split concerning “expenses” a patent applicant must pay when challenging the United States Patent and Trademark...more
How to Prepare for and Prevent Data Falsification Issues - In September 2015, news broke that Volkswagen had manipulated software on its diesel engine vehicles to avoid emissions requirements, a disclosure that led to the...more
The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a dissatisfied patent applicant that chooses to appeal from a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejecting claims of a patent application can appeal...more
This decision should be a welcome development for patent applicants seeking review. On July 27, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu, No. 16-1794...more
The en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a panel decision and held that 35 USC § 145 does not require applicants appealing to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to pay the...more
Federal Circuit Summary - En Banc (excl. Chen), Opinion for the court filed by Stoll, joined by Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District...more
The Federal Circuit just issued its en banc decision in Nantkwest v. Iancu, concluding that the proper statutory construction of Section 145 of the patent statute, which allows patent applicants to file actions in a federal...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 July 27, 2018, the Federal Circuit ruled that a patent applicant’s obligation to pay the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) “expenses” for district court proceedings to review patent application rejections does not...more
En Banc Federal Circuit Finds § 145 Appellants Generally Will Not Be Liable for Patent Office's Attorneys' Fee - The Federal Circuit handed down its en banc decision on Friday regarding the question of whether under 35...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Droplets, Inc. v. E*TRADE Bank., Appeal No. 2016-2504 (Fed. Cir. 2018)?- In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB invalidating a patent...more
Arctic Cat v. Bombardier deals with obviousness, patent marking, reasonable royalties, willfulness and enhanced damages. The panel affirms all of the district court’s rulings other than as to patent marking, which it remands...more
In June 2017, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that under 35 USC § 145, a court can award attorneys’ fees to the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), regardless of whether the applicant,...more
The first scene in the iconic dystopian 1985 sci-fi movie Brazil by Terry Gilliam (one of the Monty Python troop) is of a peaceful citizen being snatched from his comfy chair by jackbooted, black-clad members of a SWAT team,...more
In Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014), the Supreme Court changed the standard for recovering attorneys’ fees in patent litigation. Rejecting a “rigid and mechanical formulation,” the Court adopted a looser...more