The Labor Law Insider: Beware the Unfair Labor Practice - Not Just for Unions Anymore
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
KT Sound Bytes Episode 1 | The Effects of the Supreme Court Decision in Liu v. SEC
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Trade Secret Enforcement in the United Kingdom
JONES DAY TALKS®: Straight Talk About False Advertising: What Every Lawyer Needs to Know
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 86: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Remedies
Episode 5: Business Divorce, Delaware Style
Should Wall Street Fear Mary Jo White?
As we ring in the new year, it is time once again to reflect on some of the most significant legal developments for drug and device companies this year. The list below is by no means exhaustive (who could forget the Rule 702...more
Litigators know it is generally not easy to recover attorneys’ fees in defense of a trade secret misappropriation action. The Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”) permits a court to “award reasonable attorneys’ fees” to...more
The False Claims Act encourages whistleblowers to come forward when they suspect their employer is committing fraud. This post provides a general overview of the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation provision, which protects...more
Whether a court order is appealable is often the first issue analyzed by appellate attorneys. An interlocutory order is an order issued by a court while a case is pending. These orders are not a final disposition of the case,...more
The recent case of Multimedia Sales & Marketing, Inc. v. Marzullo, et al., — N.E.3d —-, 2020 IL App (1st) 191790 (1st Dist. Dec. 21, 2020), demonstrates the peril that attorney fees sanctions present for litigants who bring...more
A Summary of Published Appellate Opinions Involving the California Environmental Quality Act - Despite relatively few published opinions this year, there were significant appellate court rulings on a range of topics,...more
On September 30, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1947 into law. Effective January 1, 2021, AB 1947 will, among other things, authorize courts to award attorneys’ fees to whistleblowers who...more
Can the sledgehammer remedies of California Penal Code section 496 — treble (triple) damages and attorney fees — apply for misappropriation of an LLC’s property? The California Supreme Court is set to answer that question...more
David F. Johnson presented his paper on “Remedies for Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims” to the Tarrant County Probate Bar Association’s Litigation Seminar on August 7, 2020. This presentation covered pre-trial remedies such as...more
Liu v. Securities And Exchange Commission, Case No. 18–1501 (2020). Equitable relief, including disgorgement, is permissible under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77a et seq., so long as it does not exceed a...more
Obtaining an award of attorneys’ fees might be the final step in a long-waged litigation battle but to do so successfully requires careful planning and diligence from the outset of a case. The Texas Supreme Court recently...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the long-standing presumption that parties are responsible for their own attorney’s fees—holding that the “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings” provision of...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to a district court...more
In Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., the Supreme Court held that the Patent and Trademark Office cannot recover attorneys’ fees against an applicant in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145. An unsuccessful applicant for a patent has...more
Brand owners looking to enforce their rights expeditiously (and inexpensively) need look no further than Canada, which offers brand owners a number of tools to obtain relief against infringers and counterfeiters in a...more
In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court in Peter v. NantKwest, case number 18-801, struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent and often-criticized effort to recoup its legal fees – even in cases...more
In the LLC Jungle, allegations of “misappropriation” are common. LLC members and managers sometimes improperly divert the LLC’s funds and property for their own personal use. That bad behavior usually leads to claims of...more
Under the so-called American Rule, litigants are normally expected to pay their own attorneys’ fees, win or lose, unless a statute clearly permits or requires fee-shifting. In the underlying litigation in Peter v. NantKwest,...more
On December 11, 2019, in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., 589 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) cannot recover the salaries of its legal...more
The Supreme Court held that the PTO cannot collect attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 145, which requires challengers of PTAB decisions to pay all expenses of the proceedings....more
In a short opinion issued on December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s recent attempt to collect attorneys’ fees under a little-used provision of the Patent Act. The decision in Peter v. NantKwest (No. 18-801)...more
The Supreme Court unanimously held that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) may not recover the salaries of its legal personnel as “expenses” in a civil action challenging an adverse decision by the PTO under...more
On December 11, the US Supreme Court held that the US Patent and Trademark Office is not entitled to recover its attorney’s fees in an appeal to the Eastern District of Virgina from an adverse decision of the Patent Trial and...more
On December 11, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous order in Peter v. NantKwest, holding that a statute allowing the USPTO to recover "expenses" for appeals of patent refusals to a district court does not allow the...more
On December 11, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., No. 18-801, holding that Section 145 of the Patent Act does not require dissatisfied patent applicants who file a civil action in...more