Law Firm ILN-telligence Podcast | Episode 92: Ron Davis | Fogler Rubinoff
JONES DAY TALKS®: Class Actions Worldview Guide: Part 1–The United States and European Union
Policyholders vs. Insurers: 3 Arguments to Make When Selecting Defense Counsel & Hourly Rates
Goldberg Segalla Product Liability Series: Containing Nuclear and Thermo Nuclear Verdicts
State AG Pulse | Money, Money, Money: Where does it go and why?
Preparing for Litigation in the U.S.
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
CorpCast Episode 2: Advancement 101
How This Investment Firm Hopes to Revolutionize Litigation in America
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit updated its earlier opinion to remove language ascribing motive to a prolific inventor’s actions before the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, Case Nos....more
If an employee is passed over for a promotion due to alleged harassment, does the failure to promote happen when the employer decides to promote someone else or when the successful candidate actually takes on the role? ...more
Lawyers love to follow the intricacies of litigation - we read the court decisions and follow matters through trials like some follow the latest happenings in their favorite TV drama. CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC - From...more
On December 6, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that judicial approval is not required for offers of judgment to settle Fair Labor and Standards Act (“FLSA”) claims made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil...more
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent 9-0 decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801, informs strategic cost considerations in appeals challenging adverse decisions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office...more
On December 11, 2019, in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 589 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot recover the salaries of its legal...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court finding that an accused infringer was the “prevailing party” entitled to fees under Rule 54(d)(1) when the patent owner’s claim was dismissed for...more
B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C. v. FACEBOOK, INC. Before Lourie, Plager, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Summary: A decision on the merits is not a prerequisite...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - HZNP Medicines LLC v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-2149, et al. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) - In a lengthy decision following a bench trial, the Court addressed a matter of...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the term “full costs” in 17 USC § 505 of the Copyright Act has no special, expansive meaning, but is limited to the costs...more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions that clarify when copyright owners can sue for infringement and what costs they can recover from infringers. In Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, the Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings last week on copyright law. In both cases, they acted to resolve conflicts between the Circuits, following closely to statutory language....more
In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled questions relating to copyright applications vs. copyright registrations, while in Rimini Street v. Oracle, the justices ruled on...more
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions interpreting provisions of the Copyright Act. In the first case, the Court decided that the Copyright Office must register a copyright before a copyright...more
It has been a big week for copyright cases, and it’s only Wednesday. This Monday, the Supreme Court issued opinions on two copyright cases pending before it from the October 2018 term. ...more
On March 4, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., finding that the term “full costs” in 17 USC § 505 of the Copyright Act has no...more
Today, the Supreme Court issued three decisions: Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., No. 17-1625: Section 505 of the Copyright Act permits courts to award “full costs” to a party in a civil action. Broadly interpreting...more
In two unanimous opinions, the Supreme Court on March 4, 2019, clarified two important issues under the Copyright Act—in both cases, based on a strict reading of the relevant text. ...more
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions interpreting the Copyright Act. In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 586 U.S. ___, the Court resolved a circuit split over when...more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625, holding that a court’s discretion under section 505 of the Copyright Act to award “full costs” to the...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court in Rimini Street, Inc. et al v. Oracle USA, Inc. et al to award damages for costs in the amount of $12.8 million in a...more
On July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that can be an important tool to help copyright owners enforce their rights. It’s not unusual for copyright owners to believe that it’s just not worth going after some...more
Appellate Victory for Developers and Public Agencies - A developer can recover the cost of preparing a California Environmental Quality Act administrative record, even when the lead agency, not the developer, actually...more
In Sugar Hut Group Ltd & ors v A J Insurance Service [2016] EWCA Civ 46, 3 February 2016, the Court of Appeal over-ruled the High Court’s judgment about how costs should be awarded where a claimant succeeds on only part of...more
Can federal courts deny a prevailing party litigation costs because it was a close case? According to the Seventh Circuit’s recent opinion in United States ex rel. Pileco, Inc. v. Slurry Systems, Inc., No. 14-1267 (7th Cir....more