For years, patent owners, especially those that have never “performed” the patent, used the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s broad interpretation of the patent venue statute to force infringement lawsuits into favorable jurisdictions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas was the model; often referred to as the “patent district,” patent holders most frequently—and non-practicing entities (aka “patent trolls”) overwhelmingly—filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas, regardless of where the allegedly infringing party conducted business. Patent trolls leaned on sympathetic (and self-interested) judges to bully easy settlements out of defendants and force end consumers to pay more for all sorts of products. Continue reading “Bigger than a Bread Box? Defendants’ Shelf of Equipment Isn’t Enough for Patent Venue”
To bring a lawsuit, a plaintiff must, before all else, demonstrate standing under the Constitution. Article III requires a plaintiff have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Lujan and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions have clarified that cause-oriented organizations get no shortcuts; they must meet roughly the same standing requirements as individuals to bring lawsuits in federal court. A recent U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia decision, Environmental Working Group et al. v. Food and Drug Administration, exactingly applied those requirements to deny two environmental groups standing to sue, while at the same time signaling that D.C. Circuit organizational standing precedents should perhaps be reconsidered. Continue reading “No Matter the Cause, “Public Interest” Groups Merit No Shortcuts on Standing to Sue”
Fried Frank Of Counsel and author of the leading False Claims Act treatise, John T. Boese (on left), and his partner Douglas W. Baruch, offered insightful analysis on two recent Department of Justice policy documents (the “Granston Memo” and the “Brand Memo”) and their impact on FCA actions by both qui tam relators and federal prosecutors.
The slide presentation Boese and Baruch followed can be downloaded here.
The speakers also authored a February 2018 Working Paper for WLF on three new possible constitutional challenges to the FCA’s qui tam provisions, which can be found here.
Yesterday’s decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, the U.S. Supreme Court’s third major decision involving the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), continues a trend of reining in human rights activists’ efforts to police private businesses’ overseas conduct through ATS litigation. The Court held that foreign corporations may not be sued under the ATS for their overseas conduct. But as with past Supreme Court ATS decisions, the justices once again failed to shut the door entirely on human rights activists: the ruling said nothing about the many ATS claims pending against American corporations. It thereby ensured that U.S. companies will continue to face such claims for the foreseeable future.
While Jesner suggests that five justices likely would rule that the federal courts should not recognize an ATS cause of action against American corporations for their overseas activities, several federal appeals courts have exhibited little willingness to limit the scope of ATS liability unless directly ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. Continue reading “Supreme Court Continues to Nibble Away at Alien Tort Statute’s Sweep”
Featured Expert Column: Antitrust & Competition Policy — U.S. Department of Justice
By Anthony W. Swisher, a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia Taxi Association v. Uber Technologies) reinforces the longstanding principle that antitrust laws protect competition, not competitors. The case involved a claim of attempted monopolization levied against Uber, brought by the Philadelphia Taxi Association and a number of individual taxi drivers. The essence of the plaintiffs’ claim was that Uber entered the Philadelphia taxi market without complying with existing municipal regulations, and that as a result, Uber obtained “a stronghold in the Philadelphia taxicab market.”
The Third Circuit upheld the trial court’s ruling that plaintiffs failed to state a monopolization claim because they failed to allege a harm to the competitive process, as opposed to individual competitors. Continue reading “Ruling on Philly Taxis’ Suit vs. Uber, Third Circuit Reaffirms Antitrust Focus on Competition, not Competitors”
The independent-contractor model has been an important catalyst for improving the nation’s economic vitality. Because individuals often provide services for others while maintaining independent control over the means and methods of their own work, the use of independent contractors fosters an entrepreneurial spirit while giving firms that contract with such individuals an increased flexibility that promotes efficiency and innovation.
In recent years, however, federal regulators have increasingly pressured businesses to move away from the use of independent contractors, who are not legally entitled to unionize under federal law. Among federal agencies, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has led this charge. Beginning with the last administration, the NLRB has intensely scrutinized and second-guessed companies’ worker-classification determinations, often deeming independent contractors to be “employees” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). At great expense in time and resources, some companies have successfully appealed from the NLRB’s employment-classification rulings in federal court. Continue reading “Novel Theory of NLRA Liability Would Trample Employers’ Free Speech Rights”
By Gene C. Schaerr, a Partner with Schaerr Duncan LLP in Washington, DC. Mr. Schaerr is Counsel of Record for the petitioners on the certiorari petition discussed here.
The U.S. Supreme Court may be about to resolve two issues of enormous importance to anyone involved, directly or indirectly, in the sale of securities. The case that may provide the vehicle for such a ruling, Ellison v. United States, was recently the subject of an order directing the U.S. Solicitor General to file a response to the defendants’ petition for certiorari by May 21. That petition challenges a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that, as the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and a group of law professors explained in a supporting amicus brief, exacerbates a “system” already “stacked in favor of the government.” Continue reading “Supreme Court Has Second Chance to Resolve Circuit Split on Two Criminal Securities Fraud Issues”