Monumental Win in Data Breach Class Action: A Case Study — The Consumer Finance Podcast
The Only Rule of Multidistrict Litigation Is...
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: The Mechanics of Multidistrict Litigation: Streamlining Complex Cases
Employment Law Now V-106 - BREAKING OSHA ETS NEWS: Extending the Stay and Choosing a Lottery Winner
Gene Grabowski on Pharmaceutical & Medical Devices
Just over a year has passed since President Biden signed the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act (the State AG Venue Act or Act) into law, and state attorneys general (AG) have already taken advantage of the law’s...more
A federal court in Maryland recently granted a motion for class certification by consumers who brought negligence, breach of contract, and consumer protection claims against hotel franchisor Marriott International and data...more
On June 5, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) in Texas v. Google, LLC ruled that the State Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2021 applies to pending state antitrust enforcement actions, including to actions the...more
On December 29, 2022, President Biden signed into law the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act (the “State AG Venue Act”). This law puts all businesses at risk of defending antitrust lawsuits across different jurisdictions...more
Prior to the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act—which was signed into US law on December 29, 2022 as part of the omnibus spending bill—the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) had the power to transfer and...more
Premier forum which shapes the law, policy, and proceedings of Paragraph IV Litigation is back to New York City on April 26-27! Pharmaceutical patent practitioners from across the globe attend this flagship conference to...more
On March 4, 2021, we posted “Are Your Baby’s Strained Carrots Safe? Considerations for Manufacturers.” Multiple plaintiffs had filed class action lawsuits in jurisdictions around the country alleging that baby food...more
Venue in patent cases has been a topic of recent Supreme Court (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC) and Federal Circuit (In re Cray) consideration. Last month, the Federal Circuit again considered venue with...more
Interpreting Bristol-Myers : Are Unnamed Members of Nationwide Class Actions ‘Parties’? If So, When? In 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (BMS), holding that a...more
The patent landscape experienced a paradigm shift with the May 2017 United States Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands. In TC Heartland, venue in patent cases was narrowed to either (1) the...more
This year the District Court for the Western District of Texas is on track to experience almost a 100 percent increase in patent complaints filed compared to 2018. This significant increase is expected to continue into the...more
The Federal Circuit’s ongoing effort to implement TC Heartland—the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 patent venue decision—took another step forward in May with In re BigCommerce, Inc., which vacated and remanded two decisions...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
In our previous update, we informed you that Atlantic Trading USA LLC had filed the first class action complaint in Chicago federal court against various numerous unnamed market maker trading firms, alleging manipulation of...more
Part two of our series on competing class actions will address strategies intended to “corral” multiple cases: venue transfer under the federal forum non conveniens statute, and seeking multidistrict litigation (MDL)...more
The Supreme Court recently decided TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group, 581 U. S. ____ (2017), which has changed the rules concerning where patent infringement lawsuits may be brought. Specifically, patent infringement actions...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Venue in a patent litigation is limited to the alleged infringer’s state of incorporation or where the defendant has committed infringing acts and has a regular and established place of business....more
The Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, unanimously holding that, for the purpose of the patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), “a domestic corporation...more
The Supreme Court’s recent decision on patent venue, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, may actually turn out to be a good thing for patentees when it comes to Section 101. But before we get to that, let’s do the...more
In its decision of May 22, 2017 in Heartland v. Kraft, the United States Supreme Court held that the specific venue provisions applicable to Patent infringement (28 U.S.C. 1400 (b)) limited the courts in which a domestic...more
On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited opinion in T.C. Heartland L.L.C. v. Kraft Food Brands, L.L.C., No. 16-341 (U.S. May 22, 2017)—easily one of its most consequential rulings in patent law in several...more
For the past 27 years, plaintiffs have been able to bring patent-infringement suits against most corporations almost anywhere in the United States. So-called non-practicing entities, also known as patent “trolls,” have taken...more
A recent U.S. Supreme Court case limited patent litigation venues to a much narrower set of options. Patent venue is now limited solely to the state where the defendant is incorporated and/or states where it operates a...more
Monday, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, No. 16-341, the United States Supreme Court significantly changed the geography where future patent infringement suits can be filed....more
For nearly three decades, patent owners have been able to file patent infringement lawsuits in any court that had personal jurisdiction over the accused infringer. This broad approach to venue led to the rise of remote...more