Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Universal Injunctions, Associational Standing, and Forum Shopping - Their Effects on Legal Challenges to Regulations
Judge Mazzant’s case assignment order on March 3, 2025, brought the topic of the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) being the busiest forum for patent cases back into the spotlight...more
In its 2024 opinion in Vanegas v. Signet Builders, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit joined a growing number of federal circuits to hold that would-be plaintiffs from out of state cannot join a...more
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al. v. Wullschleger et al., upheld the Eighth Circuit’s decision, holding that when a plaintiff amends their complaint and deletes...more
On January 21, 2025, the morning after the presidential inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, an e-cigarette case where the Court will decide whether tobacco...more
On Friday, January 12, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from Starbucks on a case involving the termination of seven Memphis, Tennessee employees....more
Clients frequently ask whether a business entity needs to register to do business in a particular state with which the entity has begun to have some degree of ongoing contact. In responding we typically consider the state's...more
The decision risks opening the door to increased forum shopping in states with consent-by-registration systems, but significant questions remain about the extent of those risks....more
Last November, I questioned whether Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., U.S. S. Ct. Case No. No. 21-1168 will wipe out Delaware's hegemony over corporate litigation. In a recent post, Professor Josh Blackman considers...more
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist., No. 19-368; Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, No. 19-369: In two separate products liability actions, petitioner Ford Motor Company challenged the Montana and Minnesota State courts’...more
The first months of the Supreme Court’s 2020 term have had an aura of fatigue: a nation gripped by the COVID-19 pandemic, a court adjusting to a new colleague and an unusually light caseload (to be argued by telephone)....more
Over the past half-decade, Congress and the courts have made aggressive efforts to curb the worst abuses of the patent system. In 2013, Congress passed the America Invents Act (AIA), which established the Patent Trial and...more
I. Why It Matters - Until recently, personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants had been expanding significantly in scope through the reliance on tenuous corporate contacts or business conducted by a defendant in a...more
A defendant in a talc jury trial intends on appealing a recent verdict reached in a Missouri case involving twenty-two plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant’s talcum powder contained asbestos and that they developed...more
Following the Supreme Court’s landmark personal-jurisdiction decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb, federal district courts have continued to disagree about whether to apply the court’s holding to cases involving nationwide class...more
It’s been one year since the TC Heartland decision was issued by the Supreme Court, and it’s had a big impact on patent litigation. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (May 22, 2017)....more
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip...more
The Federal Circuit today in In re HTC Corp., Misc. 2018-130 (May 5, 2018), followed the holding of the Supreme Court in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706 (1972), that venue is proper as to...more
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that has the potential to reshape the way class actions are litigated in courts throughout the country. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California,...more
BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrell redefined the contours of a court’s jurisdictional reach by effectively subjecting corporations to general personal jurisdiction only in those states where they are incorporated or have their...more
The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), remain unsettled. ...more
In 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s longstanding interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in patent infringement actions against domestic companies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1400; see TC Heartland LLC...more
In June 2017, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) and how it would likely affect attempts by plaintiffs to pursue multi-state or nationwide class...more
In another noteworthy year for patent law, the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit issued a number of decisions that altered the patent landscape, including four Supreme Court decisions. The topics of the key cases...more
The Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), is my pick for “2017 Class Action Practitioners’ Case of the Year”––and it’s not even a class case....more
In a recent development from the Eastern District of Texas, Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne concluded that defendants Globalfoundries, Qualcomm, and Samsung waited too long prior to moving to dismiss or transfer the case due to...more