Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Deep Dive Into Judge Jackson’s Preliminary Injunction Order Against CFPB Acting Director Vought
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 303: Listen and Learn -- Injunctions and Restraining Orders (Civ Pro)
False Claims Act Insights - Can DE&I Initiatives Lead to Potential False Claims Act Liability?
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
Post-Injunction Enforcement — Highway to NIL Podcast
The NCAA's Response to the NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
Injunctions for All – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee Privacy and COVID-19, CMS Vaccine Mandate on Hold, Independent Contractor Classification - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 86: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Remedies
#WorkforceWednesday: Component 2 Pay Data Shutdown, CDC Coronavirus Guidance, and California Employers Fight Back - Employment Law This Week®
E18: ICANN Loses First GDPR Court Ruling in Germany
On March 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) in the ongoing...more
Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug in Regeneron...more
Entresto® (valsartan/sacubitril) - Case Name: Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. MSN Pharms., Inc., Nos. 2024-2211, 2024-2212, 2024 WL 4969281 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 4, 2024) (Circuit Judges Lourie, Prost, and Reyna presiding; Opinion by...more
UTTO INC. v. METROTECH CORP. Before Prost, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: The district court erred in construing the claims at the motion...more
In an appeal stemming from the denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified its precedent and explained that a district court may construe claims...more
Late last week in Natera, Inc. v. NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc. (24-1324), the Federal Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction ruling from the lower court that mostly prohibits NeoGenomics from selling its oncology test...more
Back in September 2023, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Local Division Munich issued a preliminary injunction against the defendant in 10x Genomics, Inc. v. NanoString Technologies, Inc. On February 26, 2024, in a landmark...more
This post continues our summary of substantive orders in patent litigation in the District of Minnesota. This summary includes discovery relevant to willfulness findings, stays under the customer suit exception, and...more
Ordered To Agree: Binding Settlement Agreement Provision Found Despite Absence of Singular, Executed Agreement - In Plasmacam, Inc. v. Cncelectronics, LLC Appeal No. 21-1689, the Federal Circuit held that an agreement on...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
The Federal Circuit issued numerous precedential opinions last week, two of which answered long simmering questions about inter partes reviews (IPRs). Below we discuss a case addressing whether admissions of prior art in the...more
Mere Potential for Future Appeal Does Not Prevent Triggering Estoppel of Inter Partes Reexamination When Party Fails to Seek Relief in the First Instance - In Virnetx Inc. v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1591, -1592,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding, based largely on the prosecution history, that disputed “wherein” clauses were limiting and therefore the grant of a preliminary injunction...more
Late last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction based on claim construction involving the effect of two "wherein" clauses in Allergan Sales, LLC v. Sandoz, Inc....more
Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of IPRs, Requires PTAB to Decide Validity of All Challenged Claims - Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group & SAS Institute v. Iancu (24 April 2018)....more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more
In Mylan v. Aurobindo the Circuit affirms the grant of a preliminary injunction based upon the infringement of one of the three patents in suit. However, the panel reverses the injunction as to the other two patents based on...more
Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more
WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co. (No. 2015-1038, -1044, 7/19/16) (Moore, O'Malley, Chen) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of JMOL that patent was invalid as obvious and lacked an adequate written description, affirming finding of...more
Addressing whether the district court erroneously granted a preliminary injunction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, finding that the injunction rested on an incorrect claim...more