In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 418: Listen and Learn -- Criminal Procedure: Miranda Warnings
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 19 - The Fifth Amendment & Its Role in Parallel Proceedings
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 323: Listen and Learn -- The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 157: Listen and Learn -- The Sixth Amendment
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 154: Listen and Learn -- The Exclusionary Rule (Criminal Law and Procedure)
Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
#WorkforceWednesday: Mandatory Vaccination, Tipped Worker Rule, and SCOTUS Rules Against Organized Labor - Employment Law This Week®
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 290: Listen and Learn -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 128: Listen and Learn -- Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Miranda Rights
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 79: Tackling an MEE Criminal Law/Procedure and Evidence Essay
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure
Podcast - Developments in FDA & DOJ Regulation and Enforcement of Manufacturer Communications
The Koontz Decision: Limits Conditions a Government can Impose on Developers
Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
How Does Immunity Work in a Federal Criminal Case?
MOBILITY WORKX, LLC v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC Before Newman, Schall, and Dyk. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Fee-funded structure of AIA review proceedings does not violate due process....more
In a relatively quiet third quarter of 2020, the Federal Circuit decided issues on joinder, estoppel, claim preclusion, and importantly, upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board process finding that cancellation of patent...more
In an appeal from the Northern District of California, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Security People’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) suit challenging the constitutionality of inter partes...more
CHRISTY, INC. v. UNITED STATES - Before LOURIE, REYNA, and HUGHES. Appeal from the Court of Federal Claims. Summary: The government’s refusal to refund patent issue and maintenance fees after patent claims are canceled...more
SECURITY PEOPLE, INC. v. IANCU - Before Lourie, Wallach, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California - Summary: Congress foreclosed the possibility of...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Security People, Inc. v. Iancu, Appeal No. 2019-2118 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2020) - This week’s Case of the Week deals with whether a party can challenge the outcome of an inter partes review...more
Arthrex recently filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Inc. (a case related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also the subject of petitions from the U.S. government...more
There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern...more
Today, the Supreme Court denied three petitions for certiorari challenging the constitutionality of subjecting patents issued prior to the America Invents Act (“AIA”) to inter partes review (“IPR”). See Celgene v....more
GOLDEN v. U.S. Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims. Summary: (1) Patent infringement claims against the government must be brought under 28 U.S. § 1498, not as a Fifth...more
Since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inception, it has faced questions regarding its constitutionality. This past year was no different. In 2019, aggrieved patent owners raised numerous constitutional challenges...more
2019 was another milestone year in intellectual property law that resulted in hundreds of decisions by the courts and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that will affect your company’s litigation, patent prosecution or...more
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued for the first time...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether the retroactive application of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to pre-America Invents Act (AIA) patents is an unconstitutional taking...more
In CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding appealed claims obvious. However, more importantly, the Federal Circuit also held that the retroactive application of IPR...more
On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that retroactive application of IPR (inter partes review) proceedings to pre-AIA (America Invents Act) patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment (Celgene...more
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court suggested that whether inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) apply to pre-AIA patents is an open constitutional question....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Celgene Corporation v. Laura A. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169, -1171 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit held that the retroactive...more
CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER - Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking...more
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - Celgene owned two patents that pertained to methods of safely distributing potentially hazardous drugs. The patents were challenged...more
In April 2018, the Supreme Court issued Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1365, and SAS Institute v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, a highly anticipated pair of decisions concerning post-grant...more
Since April 2018 when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Oil States decision, patent owners have made various arguments addressing issues that were not resolved in that case. One such example is Christy, Inc. v. United...more
Most people think of “intellectual property” as a type of property. This makes sense because, well, “property” is in the name. However, as lawyers know all too well, the law is never that simple. As it turns out, at least one...more
Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(d), communications with a Board member regarding a specific proceeding are not permitted “unless both parties have an opportunity to be involved in the communication.” This prohibition, however, does...more
In declaring that the inter partes review (IPR) process did not violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment, Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Oil States emphasized the narrowness of its holding, stating expressly that...more