Search

The article discusess how Texas exploited divisional judge-assignment systems for securing favorable judges challenging former U.S. President Obama administration initiatives. Topics discussed icnlude survey of the judge assignment procedures used in district courts; challenges of divisional judge-shopping; and Nevada v. U.S. Department of Labor court case on Fair Labor Standards Act.

The article presents practical advice for American attorneys on how to keep litigation matters in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after the court issues jurisdictional questions, and it mentions concerns about subject-matter jurisdiction. America's Constitution is addressed, along with U.S. federal district courts' original jurisdiction over civil actions. Legal complaints, diversity jurisdiction, and the removal of litigation to another court are assessed.

The article discusses America's spoliation of evidence doctrine in relation to electronically stored information (ESI), pre-trial discovery processes, and a December 2015 amendment to Rule 37(E) of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. American electronic discovery (e-discovery) is addressed, along with the nation's district courts and the case Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC which deals with a duty to preserve evidence. Intentional spoliation is assessed.

The article discusses various developments involving American criminal sentencing law and the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2005 case United States v. Booker which deals with the Sixth Amendment to the nation's Constitution and an enhanced sentence based on a judge's determination of a fact that was not found by the jury or admitted by the defendant. District courts in Florida and U.S. Probation Office investigation reports are examined.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1938 diversity jurisdiction case Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (Erie) in relation to a debate about whether a U.S. federal district court that is hearing a case under its diversity jurisdiction is required to use the preliminary injunction standard that would be applied by a court of general civil jurisdiction where the federal court is located. American civil procedure, forum shopping, and legal presumptions are assessed.

We test the proposition that litigation outcomes in the Ninth Circuit are significantly more activist and liberal on all federal court cases filed over a 20-year time period in which a U.S. executive agency, the USDA Forest Service, was a defendant in a lawsuit challenging a land management decision. Our results reveal that the Ninth Circuit was not significantly more likely to reverse agency decisions in the liberal direction; however, the District Courts located in the Ninth Circuit were. Additionally, opinions that all Circuits', including the Ninth Circuit, judicial panels opted to publish were significantly more likely to reverse agency action and be in the liberal direction. One consistent and statistically significant finding was that any reversal of agency action, not just those that are published, were much more likely to be in the liberal direction. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This Article undertakes a broad-based empirical review of intellectual property ("IP") litigation in U.S. federal district courts from 1994 to 2014. Unlike the prior literature, this study analyzes federal copyright, patent, and trademark litigation trends as a unified whole. It undertakes a systematic analysis of the records of more than 190,000 cases filed in federal courts and examines the subject matter, geographical, and temporal variation within federal IP litigation over the last two decades. This Article analyzes changes in the distribution of IP litigation over time and their regional distribution. The key findings of this Article stem from an attempt to understand long-term patterns in the filing data as well as short-term deviations from various trends. This data-driven approach has yielded insights in relation to such diverse topics as Internet filesharing litigation, the true impact of patent trolls on the level of patent litigation, and the extent of forum shopping and forum selling patent litigation. Just as importantly, this Article lays the foundation for planning and evaluating future empirical studies of IP litigation with a narrower focus. Many of the results and conclusions herein demonstrate the dangers of basing empirical conclusions on narrow slices of data from selected regions or selected time periods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont case Jimmo v. Sebelius (Jimmo) which deals with local coverage determinations (LCDs) regarding Medicare health insurance coverage, and it mentions the potential impact that a settlement in the Jimmo case might have the medical care that is provided to minimally conscious state (MCS) patients and people with severe brain injuries. Improvement and maintenance medical treatment standards are also assessed.

The article discusses the utilization of familiarization expert witnesses during medical malpractice cases in Idaho, and it mentions the scope of further discovery in the aftermath of the Idaho Supreme Court case Quigley v. Kemp which deals with a debate about whether a defendant health care provider is entitled to discover the identity of a local consultant. Depositions and Idaho's district courts are examined, along with a strict locality rule in medical malpractice litigation.

The article discusses the decisions of the several court cases in the Utah. Topics discussed include decision of the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in case Ortiz v. United States ex ret. Evans Army Cmty. Hosp. related to compensation for injuries, decision of the district court in case Barneck v. Utah Dep't of Transp. related to negligence and wrongful death and decision of the Utah Court of Appeals in case State v. Ludlow related to theft.

This study seeks to determine if the partisan affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of a plaintiff challenging a local, state, or federal campaign finance policy influences the case votes of U.S. district court judges. Using an original database of campaign finance cases decided between 1971 and 2007, I find that judges do not systematically favor challenges filed by plaintiffs who share the judge's partisan affiliation. However, judges are statistically less likely to favor challenges filed by plaintiffs who are members of an opposing major political party. These results indicate that plaintiffs who do not share a judge's partisan affiliation are at a disadvantage when challenging campaign finance policies. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

President Obama's 2013 veto of a US International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order, issued to address Apple Inc.'s infringement of a patent owned by Samsung, thrust the ITC's public interest inquiry into the spotlight. Historically, however, these factors rarely weighed against a remedy at the ITC. Likewise, US district courts have rarely declined to issue a permanent injunction after finding a patent valid and infringed due solely to the public interest factor--the last of the four factors that the Supreme Court put in place in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. More recent decisions addressing the public interest in both forums, however, show a willingness by the adjudicators to weigh both traditional public interest issues, such as health and well-being, and non-traditional arguments, such as public reliance and environmental concerns, against a patent owner's right to exclude. In this Article, we examine some of the successful traditional and non-traditional public interest arguments, both at the ITC and in US district courts. From this analysis, the Article outlines how parties involved in high-stakes patent litigation in either forum can craft public interest arguments to combat the threat of a permanent injunction or an ITC exclusion order. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several court decisions in Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) lawsuits against telemarketers, creditors, and debt collectors. Topics include revocation of consent by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Osorio v. State Farm Bank, cell phone verification issue addressed in Levy v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, and issues related to the definition of Automatic Telephone Dialing System (ATDS) for the federal district courts.

The article compares the differences in the use of the all writs authority that is granted to federal district courts and bankruptcy courts. Topics discussed include use of Section 105 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code for resolving conflict under the principles of equity and bankruptcy law, a bankruptcy courts cased In re Aldan Industries, Inc. related to the arbitration and the U.S. Supreme Court case Travelers Indemnity Company v. Bailey related to release of nondebtors from claims.

The article informs that Michael Nelson of Watch House International has filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging he was terminated by his Watch House International LLC in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Chapter 21 of Texas Labor Code. It mentions Nelson filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas and Watch House moved to compel arbitration. It also mentions ruling of the Texas Supreme Court in a case related to In re Halliburton Co.

One of the greatest challenges facing patent holders is the enforcement of their rights against foreign (non-US) infringers. Jurisdictional rules can prevent patent holders from filing patent infringement suits where they have the greatest likelihood of success in enforcement, such as where the infringer is located, has its seat, or holds its assets. Instead, patent holders must file lawsuits in the country where the infringed patent was issued. But filing a patent lawsuit in a US court against a non-US infringer may be subject to various difficulties associated with the fact that US substantive patent law (particularly as regards its territorial scope) and conflict of laws rules are not always compatible and interoperable with the conflict of laws rules of other countries. Such insufficient compatibility and interoperability can lead to US judgments not being enforceable outside the United States. In the Hague Conference's Judgments Project, which the Conference relaunched in 2012, the United States has an opportunity to negotiate internationally-uniform conflict of laws rules to improve cross-border litigation, including cross-border patent litigation. This Article provides data on cross-border patent litigation that can be used to show the extent of the cross-border patent litigation problem and assist in assessing the appropriate degree of US involvement in the Judgments Project. The Article updates the author's earlier research on cross-border aspects of patent litigation, contributes to the rapidly growing body of empirical literature on patent litigation (including the literature on the "patent troll" phenomenon), and enriches the literature on foreign litigants in patent disputes and on transnational litigation in general (both of which suffer from a dearth of statistical data). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technological standards allow manufacturers and consumers to rely upon these agreed-upon basic systems to facilitate sales and further invention. However, where these standards involved patented technology, the process of standard-setting raises many concerns at the intersection of antitrust and patent law. As patent holders advocate for their patents to become part of technological standards, how should courts police this activity to prevent patent holdup and other anti-competitive practices? This Note explores the differing approaches to remedies employed by the United States International Trade Commission and the United States District Courts where standard-essential patents are infringed. This Note further proposes that both adjudicative bodies should utilize the public policy prongs of their respective analyses to deny injunctive relief where an entity has previously pledged to license its standard-essential patent and fails to undergo appropriate negotiations prior to bringing a patent infringement suit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the connection between copyright law and tattoos, an art form that has not commonly been thought of as a highly protected type of intellectual property under the Copyright Act of 1976 (Copyright A ct). The issue of existence and control of tattoo intellectual property has started to make its appearance in multiple federal district courtrooms across the United States; however, thus far all cases have settled before proceeding to trial. As a result, legal precedent informing potential litigants about the merits of their cases has yet to be firmly established. This article attempts to fully explain the applicability of the Copyright Act to the tattoo industry by highlighting the claims and affirmative defenses that the respective parties may assert in litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The boundaries of federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) are blurring, as district courts seek innovative ways tofacilitate global settlements to resolve multijurisdictional, multidimensional, national mass torts. The techniques emerging from the district courts have mostly evaded appellate review and received little scholarly attention, but they raise important challenges to traditional understandings of the nature of MDL and complex litigation. This Article argues that factually similar cases proceeding in multiple court systems in mass tort disputes create a "federalism problem" for global settlements: global settlements typically benefit from oversight by a single judge, but often there is no single judge who can exercise control over all the parties who might participate in such a settlement. This Article identifies a trend emerging in MDL settlements that attempts to solve the federalism problem by extending the MDL court's authority. In the settlement phase, some MDL judges have begun experimenting with the exercise of power over state litigants (and even individuals who made private claims but never filed suit in any court), in order to facilitate global settlements. In this situation, the "case" appears to encompass the national mass tort settlement itself. This Article concludes that the aggregative trend toward transjurisdictional settlement authority in MDL has no basis in the MDL statute. The emerging practice submerges the federalism problem into the settlement agreement without regard to the inherent limitations on the federal court's structural power, but the federalism problem remains unsolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the potential role of Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 as a force for "good," focusing on the breadth of allegedly unfair methods of competition under the American statute as of 2014. The U.S. International Trade Commission and litigation in American federal district courts are addressed, along with various U.S. remedies. According to the article, Section 337 of the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 permits private parties to initiate litigation-style investigations.

The article discusses the U.S. district court's case Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. regarding the condition that patent owners would charge licensees reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) royalties for standards-essential patents (SEPs). Topics include use of RAND in resolving the breach of contract claim, determination of RAND rates for other patents required for the Wi-Fi standard, and adoption of the standard by deterring hold-up and royalty stacking.

When the Supreme Court takes action, it establishes national policy within an issue area. A traditional, legal view holds that the decisions of the Court settle questions of law and thereby close the door on future litigation, reducing the need for future attention to that issue. Alternatively, an emerging interest group perspective suggests the Court, in deciding cases, provides signals that encourage additional attention to particular issues. I examine these competing perspectives of what happens in the federal courts after Supreme Court decisions. My results indicate that while Supreme Court decisions generally settle areas of law in terms of overall litigation rates, they also introduce new information that leads to increases in the attention of judges and interest groups to those particular issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. common law doctrine of stare decisis and its role in U.S. federal courts and at the agency the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). According to the article, stare decisis does not apply to agencies such as the ITC. It examines why U.S. government agencies can ignore precedents, how U.S. appeals courts review such decisions, and discusses several ITC decisions, including Amgen, Inc. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n.

The article discusses the "boilerplate" forum-selection clauses which are often contained in contracts as of February 2014. According to the article, mandatory forum-selection clauses typically designate an exclusive venue or jurisdiction for contract-related litigation matters. It states that such clauses can preclude lawsuits from proceeding in the U.S. federal district court system. Various decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit are examined.

The article comments on the court case Apple v. Samsung in which a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that electronic products firm Samsung infringed on numerous patents of consumer electronics maker and ordered the foreign company to pay the damages. Topics include the idea of blue ribbon jury panels not immune from criticism and the implementation of a system that precludes the use of a jury stated to raise a constitutional issue.

In the wake of Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the federal district courts split over whether to apply Twombly's plausibility standard to the pleading of affirmative defenses. Initially, a majority of district courts extended Twombly to defense pleadings, but recently the courts that have declined to extend the plausibility standard have gained majority status. This Note provides a comprehensive analysis of each side of the plausibility split, identifying several hidden assumptions motivating the district courts' decisions. Drawing from its analysis of the two opposing positions, this Note responds to the courts that have applied plausibility pleading to affirmative defenses by identifying several fundamental flaws in their appeals to tradition, policy, and the text of Rule 8. Due to misguided reliance on historical pleading practices, an imprecise reading of Twombly, and an overestimation of the availability of discovery for unpled or stricken affirmative defenses, these courts fail to recognize that extending plausibility pleading beyond the complaint imposes an asymmetrical and unfairly onerous burden on defendants. This Note concludes that the courts that extend Twombly to affirmative defenses do so in violation of both the canons of statutory construction and the principles of the Rules Enabling Act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. 713 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and found the asserted patent claims obvious in view of the cited prior art. Neither the Federal Circuit nor the District Court addressed the issue of commercial success despite the fact that the patentee had submitted evidence of commercial success in its opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment (but not in support of its own motion for summary judgment). This case report presents the decision of the District Court, the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Civil litigation typically ends when the parties compromise. While existing theories of settlement primarily focus on information exchange, we instead examine how motion practice, especially nondiscovery motions, can substantially shape parties’ knowledge about their cases and thereby influence the timing of settlement. Using docket-level federal district court data, we find a number of strong effects regarding how motions can influence this process: including that the filing of a motion significantly speeds case settlement; that granted motions are more immediately critical to settlement timing than motions denied; and that plaintiff victories have a stronger effect than defendant victories. These results provide a uniquely detailed look at the mechanism of compromise via information exchange and motion practice in litigation while simultaneously yielding evidence that this effect goes well beyond the traditionally studied discovery process. (JEL C00, K00, K10, K41). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The Federal Circuit's legal decisions are perceived to have a significant impact on patent policy because of its close relationship with the patent bar and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Accordingly, litigants before the Federal Circuit may have the unique opportunity to directly influence patent policy. In a 2003 article, Professor Arti Rai suggested that if factual determinations concerning litigation were the responsibility of the USPTO and U.S. District Courts, then the Federal Circuit would be the ideal entity to make patent policy. Interestingly, during a recent panel at the 2013 Intellectual Property Symposium at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law, judges from the Federal Circuit suggested that they would like to see more policy arguments made in appellate briefs. Policy arguments are generally not emphasized in Federal Circuit briefs, but if a litigant does advance policy arguments before the Federal Circuit, it is instructive to observe (1) how the policy arguments are constructed, and (2) whether the Federal Circuit expresses a policy preference in its opinion. As an example, one need look no further than the Federal Circuit's recent en banc decision in Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. (Akamai II) where a dissenting judge accused the majority of playing policy maker. This Article analyzes the Federal Circuit's recent en banc decision in Akamai 11 from a policy perspective. This Article observes that the Federal Circuit's fractured decision was, at least in part, due to unhelpful statutory language and tension between formalism and policy concerns. Further, this Article argues all three opinions issued in Akamai are in some way consistent with policy concerns raised by the plaintiffs and their amici. Finally, this Article raises several questions, including: When are policy arguments most effective? What are the current limits of the Federal Circuit's policy making? And what is the impact on patent stakeholders when policy arguments are raised more frequently before the Federal Circuit? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the need to rectify water rights policy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) amended 2012 directives of Forest Service, USDA agency. The policies state that ski area permits for ski resorts on Forest Service lands must obtain water rights in the name of the U.S. It discusses the U.S. District Court case of Nat'l Ski Areas Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., wherein National Ski Areas Association (NSAA), a trade association, alleged that the Forest Service violated public notice provision of the U.S. Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by amending the policies. It concludes that despite the policies requisite reform however the core of the policies should remain intact because it provides a provision of policy enforcement.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Chaco Nation of the Chaco Indian Reservation v. Edward Williamson. It says that the Chaco Nation filed an appeal to the court's judgment involving the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). The district court ruled that due to lacking evidence, Harper Man's remains could not be considered as Native American according to the implication of NAGPRA.

The article discusses a court case entitled Coe v. Chesapeake Exploration LLC in the U.S. It mentions the decision by a federal district judge that Peak Energy Corp. had a valid, enforceable contract with Chesapeake and ordered Chesepeake pay over $19 million in damages for reneging on the contract. It also details the decision by the Fifth Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham in the said case.

In Novo Nordisk A/S et al. v. Caraco Pharma. Labs., Ltd. et al., 688 F.3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the Federal Circuit addressed the scope of the injunction issued by the District Court in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Ltd. et al. v. Novo Nordisk A/S et al. (U.S. 2012). The Federal Circuit found that the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing its injunction and modified the injunction accordingly. This case report presents the arguments made to the Federal Circuit by the parties and how the Federal Circuit addressed those issues. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the American media's treatment of sexual harassment claims as of December 2012, focusing on social science research, charge data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and federal district court complaints which were filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board's "Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace" survey is mentioned, along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The article discusses a court case of Lewis v. Alexander that was decided by the Third Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals and which the court stroked down of the decisions made by the U.S. district court based on a statute of Pennsylvania related to the restrictions imposed on the use of limited trust retention of postmortem accounts and pooled special needs trust accounts (PSNT) to 50 percent. The issues related to declaratory and injunctive relief in case of putative class action filed by several individuals are discussed. The challenges related to the comparability argument with reference to the U.S. Medicaid statutes are also discussed.

The article discusses a court case wherein Rosetta Stone Ltd. filed a suit against Google Inc. in the U. S. District Court claiming direct trademark infringement. It states that the company argued that Google Inc.'s policy created confusion among their customers and misled them into purchasing counterfeit Rosetta Stone software. It further states that the court examined the case and held that Google Inc. used fair trademark laws.

The article presents a court case of In re Adoption of Baby E.Z. wherein the baby Emma was taken by strangers to Utah after her birth in Virginia. The baby was adopted based on the Utah law. The real father filed motions to intervene the adoption proceeding in the Utah district court. The father further appealed to Utah Supreme Court based on the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. A focus is on the arguments in the courts of Utah and Virginia based on this case.

The article presents information on the treatment of pretrial defendants suffering with serious mental illness and using antipsychotic medication in the U.S. The administrative hearing related to the recent trials of Harper v. Washington, United States v. Loughner and Riggins v. Nevada as judged by the district courts of the U.S. are discussed. The role of the Institutions for Mental Disease and determining the current medication regime is considered. The issues related to substantive and procedural due process based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is also discussed.

The article discusses concerns relating to in-sourcing decisions before the U.S. district courts and reflects the tensions that exist in potential forums for resolving such disputes. It focuses on the jurisdictional tension between the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act's (ADRA) modification of the Tucker Act. It recommends that decisions to in-source should be reviewable, and suggests a possible strategy for challenging such decisions.

The article discusses a court case of Womack v. Orchids Paper Products Co. 401(k) Savings Plan as decided by the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Oklahoma based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The breach of fiduciary duty, regulation of financial markets and investor protection are discussed. The importance of trust relationships, issues related to suspicion in public and social capital are also discussed.

The article discusses the legal rights of American prisoners and an empirical study of non-capital habeas corpus cases after appellate review in U.S. courts as of April 2012. Grants of relief by American district courts are addressed, along with an examination of the number of prisoner-filed non-capital habeas corpus lawsuits that reach the appellate court level in the U.S. Several legal cases are assessed, including the U.S. Supreme Court case Day v. McDonough.