In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
The Justice Insiders: The Administrative State is Not Your Friend - A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein
DE Under 3: New NLx Job Count Record; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Big Strike Down; OFCCP’s Latest CSAL
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that defendants in securities fraud cases brought by the SEC are entitled by the Seventh Amendment to have the SEC’s claims for civil money penalties decided by a jury and not in an...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution entitles the defendant to a...more
On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that securities fraud claims seeking civil penalties must be decided by a jury...more
In the final week of this year’s Supreme Court term, the Court issued several decisions that alter the role of federal agencies in the way laws are interpreted and enforced, and thus the way that business will be done in the...more
SCOTUS limits agency use of ALJs in civil penalty proceedings - On June 27, 2024, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held in SEC v. Jarkesy that the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or the "Commission") could...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in SEC v. Jarkesy that the Seventh Amendment gives defendants the right to a jury trial in federal court in SEC enforcement actions seeking civil penalties for violations of the antifraud...more
But it’s Complicated. And, of course, OFCCP’s Enforcement Scheme will “not go gentle into that good night.” The case decision is Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (Case No. 22-859; i.e., “SEC decision”). ...more
For more than a decade, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has been able to bring enforcement actions in either federal court or the agency’s internal venue. Not anymore. On June 27, 2024, the U.S....more
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution entitles a defendant to a jury trial when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks to impose civil penalties for violations of the federal...more
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court ruled that inter partes reviews (IPRs) do not improperly divest the courts of their judicial authority and do not violate the Seventh...more
In 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed close to 600 appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). That is the second highest number since starting to hear post-American Invents Act...more
In 2012, Congress created a new procedure that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to conduct a litigation-like procedure to review and potentially cancel patents. This procedure - inter partes review (“IPR”) - has...more
As the most-active firm practicing at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), we are proud to have shared in our clients’ successes over the years. Fish was one of the first firms to file a post-grant petition in 2012, and...more
On April 24th, the Supreme Court decided two important cases related to the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s inter partes review (IPR) proceedings for reconsidering the prior grant of a patent – Oil States Energy...more
• The Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy ruled 7-2 that cancellation of patent claims in an inter partes review does not violate either Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. • In SAS...more
This timely and fast-moving webinar provides insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the recently issued Supreme Court decisions in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC and SAS Institute...more
In a pair of decisions issued on April 24, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the constitutionality of and the appropriate practice for inter partes review. The 7-2 majority opinion in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v....more
On April 24, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided two important cases that directly impact inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and patent litigation as a whole. In Oil States Energy...more
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important patent law opinions that relate to the inter partes review procedure introduced by the America Invents Act: Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,...more
Is inter partes review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, and the U.S. Supreme Court this week...more
Today in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of IPR proceedings, finding that they are a permissible second review of patents conducted by the administrative agency that issues them...more
The Supreme Court issued decisions in the cases of Oil States v. Greene’s Energy and SAS v. Iancu, addressing the constitutionality of inter partes review (“IPR”) and determining whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC rejecting a Constitutional challenge to the inter partes review (IPR) procedure for challenging an issued...more
Oil States preserved the PTAB, and SAS Institute makes it a more important venue for patentability challenges. Key Points: ..IPR and other post-grant proceedings before the PTAB will continue. ..However, the PTAB may...more
In a highly anticipated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review proceedings. Justice Thomas, writing for the seven-member majority in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy...more