Search

The article discusses the importance of Section 101 to modern patent litigation, focusing on its application by district courts on Section 101 motions since the U.S. Supreme Court's Alice decision. It mentions the increasing number of decision on Section 101 motions with significant success rates, with particular consideration on the importance of venue in the viability of a patent-eligibility challenge.

The article discusses the role of inter partes reviews (IPR), in the implementation of Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) which aims to improve patent quality along with limiting counterproductive and unnecessary litigation costs. Topics discussed include status of the district court litigation in relation to the progression of a litigation action, simplification of the issue for the trial by IPR, and undue prejudice or a clear tactical advantage in case of filing the IPR petition.

The article explores the impact of the intersection of Federal District Court and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) rules and obligations on a patent attorney who is simultaneously engaged in patent litigation and PTO hearings. Litigation elements affected by an attorney's dual-proceeding representation includes appearance in both hearings and attorney-client privilege. The author encourages patent attorneys in dual-proceedings to increase their awareness of various professional codes.

The article focuses on the so-called Egyptian Goddess test for design patent infringement in the U.S. It reveals that district courts which look at the scope of design patents under the test have discovered that the scope of design patents is narrow. It discusses summary judgment rulings which show that prior art played a vital role in identifying the scope of the protected design. A ruling held by the Federal Circuit in a case involving Crocs Inc. stresses that the emphasis should not be on differences in individual features, but on the overall design.

The article offers the author's insights on the Oakland, California lawsuit challenging the right of the federal government to shut down its Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary. It says that the U.S. District Court ruled that Oakland has no right to block the Harborside shutdown, only the dispensary and landlords can contest claims. It states that Cedric Chao, a partner at law firm DLA Piper representing Oakland, believes that the city's appeal will create a new law.

The article reports that Richard Leon, judge at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. issue a pending appeal against the National Security Agency's programs collecting bulk telephony metadata and claimed it to be unconstitutional. It also presents the views of the views of the judge over the case Klayman et al. v. Obama et al where Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claimed that the government exceeded its statutory authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

The article focuses on the appealing of trademark registration refusal and paying of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)'s legal fees. Topics discussed include refusal to register in federal district court of the U.S. by the unsuccessful trademark applicant, final decision of the court that may or may not be in favor of the applicant and expenses of the proceeding that includes the PTO's attorney's fees.

The article reports that online social networking firm Twitter, Inc. has filed federal lawsuit with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, California, for the Right To Disclose Surveillance Data. Topics discussed include submission of draft report to the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation, Twitter's right to speak about information of public concern, a letter from the U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole to five internet firms regarding settlement of claims.

The article reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has decided to hear a challenge to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) authority to get enforcement action over data security practices in the U.S. Topics discussed include the district court's refusal to dismiss the FTC's case ("Federal Trade Commission v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp. et al."), challenge to the FTC's authority in the data security context by Wyndham, and data security failures in Wyndham in 2012.

The article reports that according to the U.S. District Court, a promissory note exchange by the Medicaid applicant for the transferred property, is a valid form of Medicaid planning.

The article reports that BP PLC has requested a U.S. District Court in Louisiana to order the U.S. government to release more than 10,000 documents that it failed to disclose in the proceedings related to the April 2011 oil spill involving a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. government is withholding the documents under "deliberative process privilege." BP contends that the documents concern factual data on the volume of the oil spill that may have positive implications to its case.

This article reports on the decision of U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline in Anchorage, Alaska, that the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) failed to analyze environmental impacts when issuing drilling leases in the Chukchi Sea in 2008. The district court ruled that the department did not follow environmental law before selling the leases. A supplement study will order whether to affirm, modify, or cancel the lease agreements.

The article discusses a court case Sable v. Velez, wherein a group of residents filed a lawsuit in federal district court to enjoin state from counting promissory notes as trust-like devices in New Jersey. It mentions that the applicants filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for preliminary injunction. However, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denies both motion since the applicants are not required to avail remedial procedures.

The article discusses the split of authority over the extent to which an action under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) preempts other claims based on misappropriation of confidential information. This was recognized by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah in its decision in the case ClearOne Comms., Inc. v. Chiang. The court decision highlighted the inconsistency of application of the UTSA preemption clause and its implications for trade secret misappropriation actions.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. District Court on July 14, 2008 in favor of eBay in its four-year litigation with Tiffany for the sale of counterfeit products of the latter at eBay's Web site. Even if both parties were aware of the counterfeit products, it was not noted enough reason to impose the withdrawal of said listings. The decision reportedly makes it clear that there is no assurance with online market Web sites to drive out potential infringement, the court held that trademark owners are responsible to police its mark, not eBay's.

The article discusses the court case Faulkner v. Woodruff in which the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second Division reverses the decision holding that a personal representative may petition the probate court to review the reasonableness of attorney's fees.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Draper v. Colvin regarding the validation of a special needs trust to be a beneficiary under a power of attorney (POA).

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. district court who states that the annuities purchased by the Medicaid applicant for his wife cannot be considered as either assets or income when determining Medicaid eligibility

The article discusses the court ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier on the agreed settlement between the BP plc and the Plaintiff's Steering Committee within the defined geographic area, losses or damages. The categories for the damages include economic loss, real property damage, and Vessel of Opportunity Chapter Payment. The Seafood Compensation Program amounting 2.3 billion U.S. dollars is allocated for the commercial fishery operations.

The article discusses the U.S. district court case Estate of Thouron v. U.S. which deals with entitlements of the estate to refund of penalty caused by the error of attorney.

The article informs that the organization Consumer Watchdog has requested the U.S. District Court in San Francisco regarding permission to file an amicus brief opposing the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's proposed 22.5 million U.S. dollars settlement with Google Inc.

The article reports on the 10 million U.S. dollar fine imposed on Fleet Management Ltd., the operator of the MV Cosco Busan, in U.S. District Court in February 2010. The fine is in relation to the company's participation in a November 2007 oil spill in San Francisco Bay, California. The decision ended the criminal portion of the case. The U.S. National Transport Safety Board concluded that the ship's pilot was medically unfit while its captain was ineffective and that both communicated less that resulted to the collision.

The article discusses a court case wherein the U.S. District Court issues a preliminary injunction for the District of New Jersey to bar the state from penalizing Medicaid applicants for transferring assets to children with disabilities. Accordingly, applicants must transfer assets into an irrevocable trust to avoid transfer penalty. However, the court provides that preliminary injunction barred the state to impose penalty for the benefit of children with disabilities.

The article reports on the lawsuit against attorney Paul J. Harris for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS') share of settlement to James Ritchea, who was injured when fell of a ladder. CMS paid Ritchea $22,000 for medical services. On the other hand, Ritchea and Harris sued the ladder retailer for $25,000. The U.S. District Court ruled that CMS is entitled to reimbursement directly from Harris because the Medicare Secondary Payer Statue (MSPS) allows recovery from any entity.

The article reports on the violation of the Medicaid agency in Vermont to the rights of a Medicaid applicant. According to a U.S. District Court, the agency violated the applicant's rights by demanding that she and her husband reveal the purpose behind a secured loan that the couple made to their child for which they received fair market value.