Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 2: The Ford Cases [More With McGlinchey Ep. 8]
The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017), remain unsettled. ...more
On March 6, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to review the intermediate appellate court’s decision in Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, which vacated a $72 million talc verdict awarded in St. Louis City Court. ...more
In June 2017, we wrote about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) and how it would likely affect attempts by plaintiffs to pursue multi-state or nationwide class...more
Since 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to roll back the expansion of personal jurisdiction by lower courts and has set more limitations on where a plaintiff can sue corporate defendants. We have watched this unfold...more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the scope of specific personal jurisdiction in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco Cty., 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (“BMS”). Mass tort defendants...more
In the recent decision, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) v. Superior Court (2017) ___ US ____, the Supreme Court followed a string of recent decisions by further limiting out of state plaintiffs’ access to courts in...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently reaffirmed the principle that there must be a direct connection between a forum state and the underlying controversy in order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over...more
Several weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., No. 16-466, 581 U.S. —, 2017 WL 2621322 (June 19, 2017) (“Bristol-Myers Squibb”). The more than 600...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, et al., No. 16-466 (U.S. June 19, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court articulated the narrow circumstances under which specific jurisdiction will...more
In a decisive 8-1 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a theory of specific jurisdiction that would allow a state court to assert specific jurisdiction over the claims of out-of-state plaintiffs whose claims were not...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently tightened the reins when it comes to state courts’ exercise of case-based, specific personal jurisdiction over out-of-state companies. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of...more
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court reinforced its narrow application of specific jurisdiction in mass tort proceedings in an 8-1 decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California. In the class action...more
On June 19th, the Supreme Court issued a decision that could have important consequences for multi-state class actions. In Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, the Court addressed the question whether a California...more
In September, we discussed several new trends in jurisdiction, including an opinion—Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco County—in which the California Supreme Court held that hundreds of non-California...more
In its most recent decisions on personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has reiterated the distinction between general personal jurisdiction on the one hand and specific personal jurisdiction on the other. As to the former,...more
On Monday, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of...more
On Monday, January 4, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in two appeals that may determine what effect the Supreme Court’s Daimler AG v. Bauman decision will have on the exercise of personal...more
Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e), filing an Abbreviated Biologics License Application (aBLA)—like filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)— can be an act of patent infringement resulting in ‘artificial’ injury to a patentee....more
The disputed technology is a generic rivastigmine patch. Defendant is a New Jersey corporation with a principal place of business in Vermont. Only specific jurisdiction is at issue since it is not “at home” in Delaware. ...more