Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's practice of instituting review on only a subset of an <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) petitioner's validity challenges.
Features
<b><i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</b></i><p>Is <i>inter partes</i> review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in <i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</i> and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.
Features
<b><i>U.S. Supreme Court Denial of Cert Leaves Statute Vague</i></b><p>This article analyzes the confusion faced by commodity futures traders in assessing whether their trading strategies constitute illegal spoofing and examines whether the CFTC and Seventh Circuit have provided sufficient guidance on the distinction between spoofing and legitimate trading activity.
Features
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>In Part One, we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — <i>United States v. Bajakajian</i> — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government's authority to forfeit property. In Part Two, we consider possible reforms that would allow defendants to challenge forfeitures as disproportionate under a fairer and more appropriate analysis.
Features
The justices in <i>Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association</i> found the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act infringed on state sovereignty. The decision could transform sports and sports gambling from coast to coast.
Features
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>In <i>Honeycutt v. United States</i>, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense.
Features
Ultimately, <i>Village at Lakeridge</i> is noteworthy for what the Supreme Court did not decide. In granting <i>certiorari</i>, the Supreme Court declined to address whether the lower courts' various “non-statutory insider” tests should be refined. As concurrences from Justices Sotomayor and Kennedy emphasized, though, that issue is ripe for increased scrutiny.
Features
With its decision in <i>Digital Realty v. Somers</i>, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to companies interested in learning of their own securities violations before the government gets the heads-up. The case's outcome means whistleblowers who might have reported violations internally will be incentivized to bypass their own companies' compliance mechanisms in favor of immediate reporting to the SEC.
Features
The Supreme Court's decision and analysis are instructive for both bankruptcy and corporate practitioners, and will likely yield significant returns for estate beneficiaries.
Features
CareFirst, a large health care company involved in a data breach case, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on whether victims can establish Article III standing to sue for the risk of future identity theft. The Court denied the request, leaving intact a recent district court holding that consumers could successfully plead such a claim issue — and leaving a split among the federal appellate courts.