4,287 results found

A Cruise employee injured while off-duty in an autonomous vehicle as a customer sued the company, which sought arbitration under both employment and customer agreements. The trial court denied arbitration, but the Court of Appeal reversed, finding valid assent to the online arbitration provision through a clear sign-in wrap process and extending coverage to related entities based on agency and alter ego allegations.

A recent decision from the California District Court, following a long line of similar determinations, has found that the jurisdiction of organization of an LLC is irrelevant in determining diversity citizenship for purposes of diversity jurisdiction Carper v Tribune Media, Case No CV 15-04259 MMM, 2015 WL 5636922 (C.D. Ca. September 28, 2015).

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a final decision in Ohio v. EPA and granted the stay of a USEPA plan designed to require several States, including Ohio...

The June 2024 Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron deference doctrine marks a substantial shift in the regulatory landscape for the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries.

The Supreme Court decided not to grant certiorari in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, which has come to be known as the "skinny label" case.

The U.S. Access Board, the Federal agency responsible for implementing ADA regulations, has released new guidelines for providing accessible facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These guidelines come at a time when businesses in California and across the nation are already struggling to understand and comply with the plethora of often contradictory state and federal regulations.

The Supreme Court's decision in Blanche v. Lau has created new vulnerabilities for green card holders with pending criminal matters, allowing border officers to treat them as applicants for admission even before conviction. This podcast explores the far-reaching implications for permanent residents, EB-5 investors, and employers, while providing critical guidance on navigating travel risks and workplace compliance in this changed legal landscape.

The Florida Supreme Court recently held that a contingency fee multiplier can be applied unconditionally to an award of statutory attorneys' fees. Joyce v. Federated Nat'l Ins. Co., 2017 WL 4684352 (Fla. Oct. 19, 2017).

The California Supreme Court has set oral argument in State of California v. Continental Insurance Co. for May 30, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in San Francisco.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld the district court ruling barring claims of contributory infringement for activity that occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the complaint.

In the course of an inter partes review (IPR) the petitioner, Square, requested a call with the Board on the patent owner’s refusal to make its expert available for a deposition in the United States.

The Federal Circuit dismissed ironSource's appeal from a post-grant review decision, finding the company failed to demonstrate Article III standing by showing concrete plans to reintroduce products that would implicate...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that obviousness can be shown where the prior art contains a motivation to combine, even if the motivation comes in the form of a somewhat half-hearted suggestion.

It is common practice for parties in patent litigation to bring joint motions to stay to finalize terms of settlement when they have reached settlement in principle.

Addressing the issue of whether an order barring parallel litigation is an injunction subject to immediate appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied its own standard and held that injunctions arbitrating between a co-pending patent declaratory judgment action and an infringement case, each pending before a different district court, will be reviewed under the law of the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit reviewed an ITC determination involving Bissell's patent infringement claims against Tineco's surface cleaning devices, where the Commission found the original products infringed but redesigned versions did not. Both parties appealed different aspects of the ruling, challenging claim construction interpretations, the application of infringement tests, and the evidentiary basis for the Commission's findings.

In this patent infringement case spawned by an application to market a new generic drug, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s reliance on extrinsic evidence for claim construction.

Only in the rare circumstance that material (i.e., dispositive) evidence is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence should a motion to exclude be entertained seriously.