Eminent Domain: First Principles, Kelo, and In Service of Infrastructure Buildout
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 140: Listen and Learn -- Regulatory Takings
#WorkforceWednesday: Mandatory Vaccination, Tipped Worker Rule, and SCOTUS Rules Against Organized Labor - Employment Law This Week®
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
The Koontz Decision: Limits Conditions a Government can Impose on Developers
Supreme Court Hands Landowners a Major Victory - Nossaman's Brad Kuhn
I have to give it to creative, resilient lawyers (and in fact, I have lauded them in the past). When the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 (2020), a decision holding that the...more
While the details of the WTO patent waiver have not been determined (or more properly negotiated), it is important to consider the structure of the international trade regime in which the waiver will operate and the...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
Since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s inception, it has faced questions regarding its constitutionality. This past year was no different. In 2019, aggrieved patent owners raised numerous constitutional challenges...more
2019 was another milestone year in intellectual property law that resulted in hundreds of decisions by the courts and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that will affect your company’s litigation, patent prosecution or...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
With the Supreme Court in Oil States v. Greene’s Energy holding IPRs constitutional under Article III, and the Federal Circuit in Celgene v. Peter holding the retroactive use of IPRs against pre-AIA patents not to be an...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
In CELGENE CORPORATION v. PETER, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s decisions finding appealed claims obvious. However, more importantly, the Federal Circuit also held that the retroactive application of IPR...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
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court suggested that whether inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) apply to pre-AIA patents is an open constitutional question....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
Since April 2018 when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Oil States decision, patent owners have made various arguments addressing issues that were not resolved in that case. One such example is Christy, Inc. v. United...more
Most people think of “intellectual property” as a type of property. This makes sense because, well, “property” is in the name. However, as lawyers know all too well, the law is never that simple. As it turns out, at least one...more
In declaring that the inter partes review (IPR) process did not violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment, Justice Thomas’ majority opinion in Oil States emphasized the narrowness of its holding, stating expressly that...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
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire patent life cycle in a global portfolio. This month, we are please to introduce our new...more
In Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, the Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to the America Invents Act’s inter partes review process. The court held that inter partes review (IPR)...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
By a majority of 7-2, the Supreme Court has ruled that inter partes review is a valid exercise of statutory authority vested in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC,...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions today: Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. §100 et seq., went into effect...more
This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued two key decisions concerning the fundamental authority of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. ...more
Alien Tort Statute (ATS)/Political Question Doctrine/Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA)/ Act of State Doctrine - District Court Dismisses ATS Claim Where Alleged Conduct in US was not Directly Linked to Injuries...more