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®
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
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
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
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 CORPORATION v. PETER - Before Prost, Bryson, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Retroactive application of IPR proceedings to pre-AIA patents is not an unconstitutional taking...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
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
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Newman, O’Malley, and Chen. Appeal from the PTAB. Summary: Patent Owner Vertnetx Inc. (“Virnetx”) was collaterally estopped from arguing that a reference was not a printed publication...more
PTAB Patent Challengers Beware: Starting November 13, 2018, winning may be a little more difficult - According to a rule published yesterday by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more