Last week, Jeremy Jacobs posted an interesting article about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (U.S. Jun. 22, 2015), and its potential application to Endangered Species Act (ESA) jurisprudence.
It has been a little more than a year since the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Nautilus, lowering the standard for finding patent claim terms indefinite.
I’m the type of person who reads the ends of books first (which drives my book club friends crazy).
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari on April 27, 2015 in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (which we reported here), the Petitioner has weighed in with their brief.
Patents covering software for use in the financial industry are increasingly being invalidated by the courts.
MATS Decision- Supreme Court Complicates EPA’s Ability to Consider Costs When Setting New Regulations
On June 29th the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that EPA was required to consider costs of compliance when deciding whether it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate emission of mercury and other air toxics from power plants.
The U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently issued a unanimous decision as to whether or not prosecutors could introduce statements at trial when a child is not available for cross examination.
A number of courts have considered whether the Fourth Amendment requires the government to obtain a warrant to access historical and/or real time cell phone geographic location information, known as CSLI.
Continuing with our series reporting on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, today we will decipher the impact of the second patent case, Commil v. Cisco, and the claim of “induced infringement.”
After months of will-he-or-won’t-he speculation about whether the U.S. Solicitor General would ask the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s restrictive insider-trading decision in United States v. Newman, the question has now been answered.