Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Cantero Opinion: The Supreme Court Leaves National Bank Preemption in Limbo
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
In That Case: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
In That Case: Cantero v. Bank of America
Early Returns Podcast with Jan Baran - Josh Gerstein: SCOTUS, the Presidential Immunity Case Fallout, and the Dobbs Case Leak Investigation
DE Under 3: Retirement of “Chevron Doctrine” Exposed Vulnerability of OFCCP’s Overreaching Interpretations of Some of its Rules
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 5: What the End of Agency Deference Means for the Healthcare Industry
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
DE Under 3: OFCCP Must Shut Down its Administrative Court Prosecutions as a Result of SCOTUS’ SEC Jury Trial Case Decision
The Briefing: Supreme Court Holds Copyright Damages Can Go Beyond 3 Years (Podcast)
The Briefing: Supreme Court Holds Copyright Damages Can Go Beyond 3 Years
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS applies the "discovery rule" in timely copyright infringement claim; Cher wins in Marital Settlement Agreement vs Copyright Grant Termination Notices; Student Athletes Win Revenue Share and NIL
The U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the past term handed down a decision, Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., that greatly expanded the doctrine of patent exhaustion. This equitable doctrine prevents a...more
Patent owners have long imposed post-sale restrictions on their patented goods and relied on U.S. patent laws to enforce these restrictions. For instance, companies have sought to enforce “single use” restrictions on their...more
The Court also holds that patent exhaustion applies to both foreign and domestic sales in a historic decision. Key Points: ..Patent rights are exhausted by sale even if the patentee purports to impose post-sale...more
Hailed by some as the “right to repair”, on May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that a seller’s patent rights are not valid beyond the first sale of the patented product. Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Intern., Inc....more
In a case of keen importance to sellers of refurbished products such as auto parts and medical devices, last month, in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., ___ U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court of the...more
In a nearly unanimous opinion issued recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held “a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, No. 15–1189, 137 S. Ct. ___, 2017 WL 2322830 (May 30, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a patentee’s sale of a product exhausts all of its U.S. patent rights in...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the Supreme Court held that after a patent holder sells a patented product, the patent holder cannot control the product by way of patent rights. United States...more
In Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit, and held U.S. patents rights exhausted by the patent owner’s sale of a patented article...more
When do patent rights end? If you buy a patented invention, is it your property in the same way that you can do with a pair of pants as you please after purchasing it? ...more
Manufacturers have long used patents, licenses and litigation to deter competitive products and restrict secondary markets in their products. The U.S. Supreme Court just dealt these practices a severe blow, confirming that a...more
In the United States, once a patentee has sold its product—whether domestically or internationally—its patent rights in that product are exhausted; the patentee can no longer use patent law to control refurbishing or resale...more
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., that eliminates a patentee’s patent rights in a product sold by the patentee. The Supreme Court held that “a...more
According to a recent Supreme Court decision, when it comes to the applicability of patent exhaustion, “restrictions and location are irrelevant; what matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale.” In Impression...more
Although U.S. patent law has long-established limits on enforcement after a patented product has been sold, the technological innovations may put a bulls-eye on the automotive industry for patent litigation. However, when...more
Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 581 U.S. ___ (2017) reversed the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of the patent exhaustion doctrine. The Supreme Court held...more
On May 30, 2017, the United States Supreme Court expanded the concept of patent exhaustion. Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 (U.S. May 30, 2017)....more
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Lexmark’s decision to sell its patented printer ink cartridge exhausted all of its patent rights in that cartridge, regardless of any contractual restrictions Lexmark attempted to impose...more
On Tuesday (May 30, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the after-market reach of patent rights. The decision in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 (S. Ct. May 30, 2017) (8-0; 7-1),...more
The Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument Regarding the Standard for Awarding Enhanced Damages in Patent Cases - Why it matters: The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the standard for awarding "enhanced" damages in patent...more
Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., Case Nos. 14-1617, -1619 (Fed Cir, Feb. 12, 2016) (en banc) (Taranto, J., joined by Prost, CJ and Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Chen and Stoll, JJ)...more
Highlights of 2015 and What to Watch in 2016 in The United States - Commil USA, llC v. CiSCo SyStemS, inC. (Supreme Court, may 26, 2015). In May, the Supreme Court held that a good faith belief that an asserted patent...more