“Oil States” Oral Argument: Many Nuances Probed, Little Light Shed on Outcome

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor, Intellectual Property—Patents

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

The November 27, 2017 oral arguments in Oil States Energy v. Greene’s Energy Group shed little light on the ultimate fate of inter partes review proceedings (“IPRs”), in which the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) may invalidate an issued patent. As anticipated, much of the discussion focused on whether patents entail public or private rights, but more telling were the justices’ questions emphasizing due-process concerns. Continue reading ““Oil States” Oral Argument: Many Nuances Probed, Little Light Shed on Outcome”

High Stakes for Patent Holders, Challengers in SCOTUS “Oil States” Case

Kaminski_Jeffri_LRFeatured Expert Contributor, Intellectual Property—Patents

Jeffri A. Kaminski, Venable LLP

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, which could strike a devastating blow to extant patent procedure. On November 27, the Court will consider Oil States’ challenge to the constitutionality of the Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to scrutinize the validity of already-issued patents. While this is not the first constitutional challenge to IPRs, Oil States marks the first time the Supreme Court will confront the issue. Continue reading “High Stakes for Patent Holders, Challengers in SCOTUS “Oil States” Case”

Third Circuit Antitrust Decision Makes Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes Nearly Impossible to Settle

FTC_Man_Controlling_TradeThe U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 FTC v. Actavis, Inc. decision held that “reverse payment” settlement agreements—in which a drug company suing a generic competitor for patent infringement pays the alleged infringer a substantial amount of cash to settle the litigation—are subject to antitrust scrutiny.  The Court reasoned that such reverse payments are unusual and may indicate that the generic company is really being paid not to compete.

An August 21, 2017 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stretched the Actavis holding far beyond anything intended by the Supreme Court.  If the appeals court’s decision in In re: Lipitor Antitrust Litigation is allowed to stand, it may become virtually impossible for drug companies to settle patent-infringement litigation. Continue reading “Third Circuit Antitrust Decision Makes Pharmaceutical Patent Disputes Nearly Impossible to Settle”

Is D.C. Circuit’s Data-Breach Standing Decision a Tipping Point for High Court Review?

cohen-david-tGuest Commentary by David T. Cohen, Counsel at Ropes & Gray LLP in its New York, NY office.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires all private litigants in federal court to establish “standing,” that is, to show that they are proper litigants to raise the defendant’s alleged legal violations with the court. To have standing, a plaintiff must face an actual or sufficiently imminent future injury from the legal violation.  Several recent federal appellate decisions have grappled with the issue of when, if ever, a plaintiff whose personal information was compromised in a data breach—but who has suffered no actual harm from that compromise—faces a sufficiently imminent future harm to have Article III standing.

One such recent case stands out from the pack, both because it hails from the particularly prominent U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and because it is the subject of a forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari, setting the stage for what could become the first-ever ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue in a data breach matter. Continue reading “Is D.C. Circuit’s Data-Breach Standing Decision a Tipping Point for High Court Review?”

SCOTUS Seeks Solicitor General’s Views on Apple’s Cert. Petition in Antitrust Suit

app storeIn an orders list issued today, the U.S Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General of the United States to file a brief expressing the federal government’s views on the petition for certiorari in Apple, Inc. v. Pepper. The case, in which Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief supporting Apple’s request for review, involves a forty-year old Supreme Court doctrine dictating that only direct purchasers of good or services may file private enforcement actions under federal antitrust laws.

The Court occasionally seeks the federal government’s views on a petition for certiorari in cases in which the government is not directly involved, but that implicate significant federal interests. In Supreme Court-speak, this is known as a CVSG: Calling for the Views of the Solicitor General. Continue reading “SCOTUS Seeks Solicitor General’s Views on Apple’s Cert. Petition in Antitrust Suit”

WLF Webinar, October 11, 1:00 PM: Winning Personal Jurisdiction and Venue Battles

Personal Jurisdiction and Venue Disputes: Succeeding in a Changed Legal Environment
Wednesday, October 11, 2017, 1:00-2:00 pm EST

To view live on WLF’s Ustream channel, click here.

Featuring:

Description: Previously relegated to law-school classroom debate, personal jurisdiction and venue are now front-of-mind issues for civil litigators. Our speakers will address how lower courts, and the plaintiffs’ bar, have responded to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rebukes of forum shopping. They will also identify the open questions and possible loopholes in the new jurisprudence, and discuss strategic responses on how to obtain and keep a “home court” advantage.

Pending High Court Case Tests Congress’s Authority to Detain and Deport Criminal Aliens

supreme courtThe US Supreme Court on October 3, 2017 will hear oral arguments for the second time in an important immigration case, Jennings v. Rodriguez.  The Court was unable to reach a decision the first time around, apparently because it divided 4-4 on how to resolve the case.  A key issue in the case is which constitutional body—Congress or the federal courts—gets to make policy governing the treatment of aliens convicted of serious crimes.

An unbroken line of Supreme Court precedent (including 1976’s Mathews v. Diaz) provides a ready answer to that question: immigration policy is “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.”  Congress determined that aliens convicted of serious crimes should be deported and should be detained pending final removal; courts should not be second-guessing that determination. Continue reading “Pending High Court Case Tests Congress’s Authority to Detain and Deport Criminal Aliens”