Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
#WorkforceWednesday: New AB5 Exemptions, EEOC COVID-19 Updates, Joint-Employer Rule Partially Struck Down - Employment Law This Week®
Over a year after becoming law, New York’s Foreclosure Abuse Prevention Act, L. 2022, ch. 821 (eff. Dec. 30, 2022) (FAPA) continues to divide trial courts regarding the constitutionality of the law’s retroactive...more
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s (“the Court”) ruling in NECEC Transmission LLC et al v. Bureau of Parks and Lands et al, 2022 ME 48 (August 30, 2022), that New England Clean Energy Connect (“NECEC”) holds constitutionally...more
Last week, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas concluded that plaintiffs can bring claims for violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b) that arose while the government-debt exception (“GDE”) to that provision...more
Arthrex recently filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Inc. (a case related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also the subject of petitions from the U.S. government...more
There is little rhyme nor reason in the cases the Supreme Court decides to review. But the Court has patterns in its case selection that do (to some degree) probe what the Justices think are important questions. One pattern...more
As we recently wrote here, Uber and Postmates (and two of their drivers) to file an eleventh-hour lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of California’s controversial new independent contractor law – known as AB 5 –...more
Arthrex appealed a final written decision from an inter partes review (IPR) where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all challenged claims of its patent anticipated. On appeal, Arthrex argued for the first time...more
AB 5, California’s hastily passed and controversial independent contractor statute, which codifies the use of an “ABC test,” is set to go into effect on January 1, 2020. Already, the California Trucking Association has filed...more
On November 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered the parties in Polaris Innovations Lt. v. Kingston Technology Company, Inc. to provide supplemental briefing addressing the...more
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides that “[n]o state shall . . . pass any . . . Law Impairing the Obligation of Contracts . . . .” On August 2, 2019, a panel of the US Court of Appeals...more
This is the third blog by our Trade Secrets , Computer Fraud & Non-Competes team dealing with Washington state’s House Bill 1450, which dramatically alters non-compete agreements within the state. This blog discusses...more
On August 29, 2019, an Illinois court denied a petition by a political activist and a hedge fund seeking leave to file a lawsuit claiming that approximately $16 billion of Illinois’s general obligation bonds (“GO Bonds”) were...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed for the first time whether the retroactive application of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings to pre-America Invents Act (AIA) patents is an unconstitutional taking...more
On July 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that retroactive application of IPR (inter partes review) proceedings to pre-AIA (America Invents Act) patents is not an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth Amendment (Celgene...more
Celgene Corp. v. Peter, Appeal Nos. 2018-1167, -1168, -1169 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) - Celgene owned two patents that pertained to methods of safely distributing potentially hazardous drugs. The patents were challenged...more
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6086, holding that Congress’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General to specify offenders to whom the registration...more
In one of the latest decisions in the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that Rule 36 affirmance can create collateral estoppel. VirnetX Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case Nos. 17-2490,...more
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the project baseline under CEQA for construction of a new home did not include demolition of a potential historic structure that had occurred before submittal of a permit...more
With the February 24, 2015, enactment of Assembly Bill 125 (2015 Nevada Laws, Ch. 2), much has changed in the world of residential construction defect litigation. One of the most dramatic shifts has been the reduction of the...more
The D.C. Circuit Court issued its long-awaited opinion in PHH Corporation v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 15-1177 (D.C. Cir., filed 2015) regarding the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection...more