Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
This week, the Court knocks down a party’s argument that it was “de facto debarred” from exporting activities under the Arms Export Control Act, and explains what exactly triggers the statute of limitations in Wiretap Act...more
Maybe it was the end of summer and the start of fall, or the kids (kind of) going back to school. But whatever it was, last week the Court issued only one precedential decision, in a veteran’s benefits case. All said, the...more
Next week is Court week. Readers may remember that, after the Court released the September calendar, we predicted that the submission trend would continue. Were we right? Sort of....more
Federal Circuit (Again) Hands Down Revised Opinion in Response to Petition for Rehearing - Recently the Federal Circuit has begun a practice of withdrawing an original opinion and handing down a substitute opinion in...more
In a conundrum worthy of a law school civil procedure examination, plaintiff Gensetix found itself apparently with no remedy for infringement by Baylor College of Medicine, Diakonos Research Ltd., and William Decker of...more
In last week’s decision in Trump v. Vance, the Supreme Court addressed for the first time whether a state District Attorney’s Office can issue a state criminal subpoena to a President. Relying on historical examples dating as...more
On July 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635, holding that President Donald Trump was required to respond to a state subpoena of his tax returns and other financial information because “Article...more
Last month, in Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granting summary judgment of non-infringement to...more
The PTAB Cannot Approve or Deny Certificates of Correction - In Honeywell International, Inc. v. Arkema Inc., Arkema France, Appeal Nos. 2018-1151, -1153, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) does not have the...more
State Sovereignty Principles Do Not Allow a State to Bring a Patent Infringement Suit in an Improper Venue - In Board of Regents v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700, the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent...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
A new federal court decision offers a ray of light to those providers defending false claims actions based on an alleged lack of medical necessity. On September 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more
On April 16, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Erickson Productions, Inc. v. Kast. The Erickson decision teaches several important lessons. First, it reminds copyright owners of the...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
Federal Circuit Determines Time-Barred Petitioner Joined to an IPR Has Appellate Standing - In Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Research Corporation Tech., Appeal Nos. 2017-2088, -2089, -2091, the Federal Circuit held that a...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: When the Federal Circuit holds that a combination of references...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
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
This month’s key employment law cases address nonsolicitation provisions and arbitration agreements. AMN Healthcare, Inc. v. Aya Healthcare Servs., Inc., 28 Cal. App. 5th 923, 239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 577 (2018) Summary:...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Directed to Tabbed Spreadsheets Patent Eligible and Claims Directed to Tracking Changes in Documents Ineligible Under Section 101 - In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Appeal No....more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, Hughes, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Summary: Reasonable royalty patent damages cannot include a royalty for...more
IPR Petitioner’s Initial Identification of the Real Parties in Interest Is to Be Accepted Unless and Until Disputed by a Patent Owner - In Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1481, -1546, -1583, the Federal...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Schall, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously leaves no room for assignor estoppel to apply in...more
Federal Circuit Finds Claims Issued from Reexamination Co-Pending with Appeal Ineligible Where the Changes Did Not Affect Section 101 Eligibility - In SAP AMERICA, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, Appeal No. 2017-2081, the...more