And so the stage is set. For the first time in more than 100 years, the Supreme Court is stepping in on design patents—all thanks to Apple and Samsung’s grudge match.
On October 6, the California Supreme Court heard oral argument in Los Angeles Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court, a case that we have blogged about twice in the past because of its possible impact on policyholders (see posts Submitting Your Defense Bills to Insurers Could Mean Waiving Privilege and California Supreme Court Will Review Appellate Decision Holding That Attorney Bills Are Privileged).
A new Supreme Court term is once again underway.
Government attorneys who just days ago were on the verge of sending Austin “Jack” DeCoster and his son Peter DeCoster to federal prison have now agreed the egg men should remain free long enough to allow the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case.
All eyes were on the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday as it heard arguments in Salman v. United States (No. 15-628) concerning the “personal benefit” required to establish a claim for insider trading.
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review a decision holding that NCAA athletes did not have to be paid beyond the cost of attending college.
Thurgood Marshall was not just a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, he was the lawyer that led many of the civil rights cases striking down de jure racism in the United States.
This week, the United States Supreme Court refused to take a case. The High Court’s refusal to hear arguments and grade the papers of a lower Arizona court decision means that decision stands.
U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Hear the NCAA “O’Bannon” Case, Cementing NCAA’s System of Amateurism in Place
Former UCLA basketball star and NCAA champion Ed O’Bannon was the lead plaintiff in a 2009 class action lawsuit that was the first serious challenge to the lifeblood of the NCAA’s very existence: all of its players are unpaid amateurs.
When we talk these days about the role of functionality in determining the copyrightability of a useful article, we are generally talking about the 10 different separability tests currently duking it out at the Supreme Court in the Varsity Brands case.