Topic: SCOTUS

Supreme Court to Logging Industry and EPA: You’re Right – Permits Not Required for Stormwater Runoff

“While EPA got the result that it wanted here, the decision may come back to haunt it in the long run…” (Foley Hoag) Environmental regulation, like politics, makes strange bedfellows… In late March, the US Supreme Court handed a victory to both the country’s logging industry and the federal agency charged with protecting the environment… Read more »

In Comcast v. Behrend, Supreme Court Ups the Ante for Class-Action Certification

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that should change the nature of class-action lawsuits in the United States. In Comcast v. Behrend, more than two million current and former Comcast customers sought class certification to sue the cable company for overcharging its subscribers. The issue before the court? Joshua Roberts at law… Read more »

Supreme Court Strikes Blow to Class Action “Forum-Shopping”

“At issue in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles was the transparent attempt by a named plaintiff to ouster federal court jurisdiction by ‘stipulating’ that the damages sought through a class action complaint would not exceed the $5,000,000 minimum jurisdictional limit of CAFA.” (Barger & Wolen) On March 20, 2013, the Supreme Court handed down… Read more »

[Video] Corporate Law Report – On SEC News

Welcome to the latest edition of the Corporate Law Report. You know what to do: Watch the video overview above and, for any topics that interest you, go deeper with the legal analysis and commentary below>> 1. Gabelli v. SEC: Supreme Court in Gabelli: Clock Starts Ticking When Fraud Occurs, Not When It’s Discovered –… Read more »

SCOTUS Says Nike’s Promise to Not Sue Renders Trademark Lawsuit Unnecessary

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a promise not to sue a competitor for infringing its trademark means that Nike won’t have to face a lawsuit challenging the validity of that mark. Michael Boudett of law firm Foley Hoag explains: “Nike, having sued competitor Already LLC for infringing its marks, later issued… Read more »

Health Insurance Exchanges after the Obamacare Ruling

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act means that states will need to act quickly to develop health insurance exchanges as mandated by the law. From law firm McKenna Long: “With the ACA emerging relatively unscathed in the Supreme Court’s ruling, exchange planners have a… Read more »

What the Health Care Ruling Means for the Insurance Industry – Obamacare Analysis

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provided insurance companies with a greater degree of certainty regarding health care reform than they have had since the act was first signed into law. Although legislative and legal challenges to the reforms continue (see updates by Patton Boggs and Littler),… Read more »

What the Obamacare Ruling Means for Health Care Providers

“Like insurance companies, institutional providers have devoted substantial effort and resources to preparing to comply with the Act’s requirements… Indeed, prior to the Court’s opinion, many institutional health care providers argued in favor of upholding the Act because the projected expansion of coverage to 30 million additional Americans would result in additional revenue for the… Read more »

Biosimilars Benefit From Health Care Reform Decision

“With [the] Supreme Court affirmance of the bulk of the Affordable Care Act, the specter that the BPCIA framework for biosimilar introduction could be dismantled is no longer a concern. Presumably it will be full speed ahead through the regulatory process, and we will see biosimilar applications for approval and attendant patent litigation before too… Read more »

RESPA Update: Quicken’s Loan Fees Do Not Violate Federal Rules

In a unanimous decision published yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in Freeman, et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc., that Quicken Loans did not violate the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) when it charged what plaintiffs considered to be “unearned” settlement service charges. RESPA rules bar unearned fees when they are split between two or… Read more »

Supreme Court Rules Generic Drug Makers can Challenge Brand-Name Patents

On April 17, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S that generic drug makers can sue brand-name drug makers when the latter claim exaggerated descriptions of indications covered by their patented drugs. The Food and Drug Administration has historically allowed brand-name drug makers to write their own descriptions… Read more »

Kappos v. Hyatt: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Inventors

In a unanimous decision earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled in Kappos v. Hyatt that a patent applicant has the right to present new evidence when appealing the rejection of their application. The ruling clarifies the procedures for introducing and evaluating new evidence in support of a denied patent application. For your reference, a roundup… Read more »

Supreme Court Remands Myriad Following Rejection of Prometheus Patents

When a unanimous Supreme Court earlier this month rejected Prometheus’ claims that isolated DNA sequences are patentable (see Mayo v. Prometheus: SCOTUS Issues Landmark IP Law Opinion), many wondered if the diagnostic testing patents held by Myriad Genetics would meet a similar fate. It took less than one week to get the answer. On March… Read more »

Obama Health Care Reform: How Will The Supreme Court Rule? What Implications?

From Is that Legal?: Later this month, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, the lawsuit chosen to give the Court an opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Here are three interesting… Read on: Obama Health… Read more »

Invention Protection Upheld in Spite of Bayh-Dole Act: A Legal Reading List

“Because all ownership rights stem initially from the inventor, even in the case of federally funded research, the inventor’s ownership rights trump the Bayh-Dole vesting provision…” The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave employee/inventor patent owners a boost in their Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University v. Roche Molecular Systems decision. Here’s what law… Read more »