Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Spotlight on Civil Procedure (Part 3 – The Civil Lawsuit)
The Briefing: Diana Copeland – “Surviving R. Kelly” But Not Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss
(Podcast) The Briefing: Diana Copeland – “Surviving R. Kelly” But Not Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss
RICO's Person/Enterprise Distinction - RICO Report Podcast
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 286: Listen and Learn -- Conclusory Pleadings Under Rule 12(b)(6) (Civ Pro)
Navigating Civil Standing Requirements for Defense Success — RICO Report Podcast
Episode 322 -- Checking in on Caremark Cases
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 208: Listen and Learn -- Motions to Dismiss a Case
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: The Yonays Take the First Sortie in Copyright Fight With Paramount Over Top Gun Maverick
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Paramount is Ready to Dogfight in Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
Second Circuit Decision Potentially Broadens RICO Proximate Cause Element - RICO Report Podcast
Anatomy of a Successful Motion to Dismiss in RICO Case
A Discussion on the Kollaritsch v. Michigan State University Board of Trustees Decision
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
Case Involving Burger King Employee Spitting in Officer’s Burger Goes Before WA Supreme Court
On April 4, 2025, Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom (E.D.N.Y.) declined to sanction a pro se plaintiff for failing to conduct an adequate pre-suit investigation of whether his patent was infringed. Plaintiff initially filed a...more
Key Takeaway: Just as over a million businesses use Amazon web servers, many independent sellers also use Amazon warehouses to store their inventory. More than 60% of sales in the Amazon store come from independent sellers,...more
Following the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision in 2017, a patent owner may only sue an alleged infringer in either: (1) a judicial district of the state where the defendant is incorporated; or (2) a judicial district...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of motions made by two car distributors to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas for improper venue, finding that the patent...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland (137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)), the venue statute for patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), has been interpreted to mean that venue is proper only where the defendant “resides” or...more
The question of the proper court for a branded pharmaceutical maker to bring suit against an Abbreviated New Drug Application filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act is surprisingly unsettled seeing as the Act was enacted in 1984. ...more
The Federal Circuit wrapped up another (perhaps final) week of telephone arguments last week. As of now, the Court is still set to restart in-person arguments next month. But we’ll have to see if those plans change. Below we...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
On September 30, 2019—more than two years after Plaintiff, Electric Mirror, LLC (“Electric Mirror”) first brought suit for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York—United States District Judge Andrew L. Carter...more
In Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 18-cv-1518 JLS (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), the California district court denied Lilly’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Opinion, Sept....more
WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY - Before Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: To establish proper venue, a plaintiff must...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit elected not to decide en banc whether servers or similar equipment in third-party facilities constitute a regular and established place of business under the patent venue...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in T-JAT Systems 2006 LTD. v. Expedia, Inc. (DE) et al., Civil Action No. 16-581-RGA (D.Del. January 29, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for...more
On January 2, 2019, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ("CDCA") an action brought by Plaintiff NextEngine, Inc. against Defendants NextEngine,...more
ArcelorMittal Atlantique Et Lorraine v. AK Steel Corporation, Appeal No. 2017-1637 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2018) - In an opinion originally filed as sealed on Nov. 5 and unsealed on Nov. 18, the Federal Circuit vacated and...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Taranto, per curiam. Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Summary: In a case pending before TC Heartland was...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas recently issued an interesting decision regarding the venue analysis for car companies selling into a particular...more
In May 2017, the Supreme Court tightened the rule for venue over domestic defendants in patent infringement cases finding that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), venue is proper only “in the judicial district where the defendant...more
The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has denied Google’s motion to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement case SEVEN Networks v. Google for improper venue, finding that Google’s servers housed by...more
A Complaint Identifying Infringing Products and the Patents Allegedly Infringed, Accompanied by Statements that the Products Meet All Elements of at Least One Claim of the Asserted Patents, May be Sufficient to Meet the...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that when a defendant is incorporated in a state that has multiple judicial districts, the defendant will reside in only one of the districts for venue purposes under the patent venue statute, 28...more
On May 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, In re: ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2018-113, held that Federal circuit law governs the burden of proof for venue challenges under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and...more
In an order issued May 14, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a District Court order that denied a motion to dismiss for improper venue. The Court held that, in challenges to venue under 28 U.S.C. §...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Reyna, Linn, and Hughes. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: Under Federal Circuit law, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that venue is...more
A federal district court in the Southern District of Texas recently addressed venue issues relating to supplier-distributor relationships. Given the defendant’s lack of physical presence in the district, Chief Judge Lee...more