The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Drilling Down: Real Parties in Interest and Time Bars - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Certain transactions between employee benefit plans and “parties in interest” are prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA). ...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued one decision today: Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007: This case addresses the pleading standard to assert a claim under a provision of the Employee Retirement...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board rejected a patent owner’s assertion that petitioner should have named a third party, which was a defendant in a related district court patent infringement litigation and a party to a joint...more
In one of the most publicized terms for the U.S. Supreme Court, one June decision has not received the attention it deserves: Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc. Truck upends decades of Chapter 11...more
On June 6, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision on an insurer’s standing in its policyholders’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding in Truck Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., 144 S. Ct. 1414 (2024). The decision...more
What is the range of a federal district court’s power to compel a nonparty’s attendance at a hearing? Every practicing litigator knows the answer—“within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly...more
In a rebuke of a common law doctrine that denied insurer standing in chapter 11, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that insurers with financial responsibility for claims asserted in bankruptcy are parties in interest...more
Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc. and Hanson Permanente Cement, Inc. (collectively, the “Debtors”), manufacturers of asbestos-containing cement products, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy on September 30, 2016 (“Petition Date”) in the...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, No. 23-250: This case concerns the funding the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) must provide to Indian tribes that...more
This CLE course will guide patent counsel in identifying and determining inventorship and offer best practices for correcting errors regarding inventorship. Our experienced panel will provide perspectives gained from working...more
On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in 4 cases: Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, 22-1219: This is the second case that the Court has agreed to hear this term...more
In City of San Clemente v. Department of Transportation (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1131, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a homeowner’s association (Association), who challenged a proposed state highway extension...more
On September 12, the New York Cannabis Control Board (CCB) approved final regulations governing the adult-use cannabis industry in New York, marking a long-awaited moment for industry participants and state regulators alike....more
A recent Ninth Circuit decision has generated considerable controversy amongst employee benefits practitioners by holding that plan fiduciaries engaged in prohibited transactions when they amended the plan’s existing...more
Failure to disclose certain relationships with a third party may result in significant consequences from the court. Scott Hervey and Eric Caligiuri talk about this on this episode of The Briefing....more
Recently, the PTAB held that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Petitioner”), met its burden in showing that a third party (the “Third Party”) was neither a real party-in-interest (“RPI”) nor in privity with Petitioner....more
On May 16, 2023, Director Katherine Vidal vacated a portion of a final written decision regarding real parties in interest (“RPIs”) in Unified Patents, LLC v. Memory Web, LLC, IPR2021-01413. Director Vidal held that the...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office Director partially vacated the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s real-party-in-interest (RPI) determination because that determination was not necessary to resolve the underlying proceeding....more
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision written by Justice Kagan, held on June 16 that the United States (“Government”), having initially chosen not to intervene in a False Claims Act (“FCA”) qui tam case, but having...more
It should come as no surprise to constitutionalists, practitioners under the Federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§3729–3733) (FCA), and auditors of the oral argument in the case that the Supreme Court has held that the...more
Two recent court decisions bring into focus two seldom-asked questions about the reasonable compensation requirement under ERISA. When must an ERISA plan’s service provider compensation be reasonable?...more
In Durkin v. City & County of San Francisco (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643, the First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting the real party in interest’s special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP...more
In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Netlist, Inc., the PTAB determined that a time-barred third party was not a real party in interest (“RPI”) and granted institution. IPR2022-00615, Paper 20 (Oct. 19, 2022) at 19...more
Atlanta Gas petitioned for inter partes review of Bennett’s ’029 patent. The Board initially rejected Bennett’s argument that Atlanta Gas was time barred from petitioning for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and...more