4,296 results found

In an opinion filed July 31, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit rejected Minnesota’s appeal of a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) decision to deny a Medicaid state plan amendment (SPA) as a result of inadequate responses to the agency’s increased scrutiny of Medicaid reimbursement and state funding mechanisms.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling Monday resolving the question of whether filing a proof of claim for a debt that is time-barred by the statute of limitations is a violation of the FDCPA.

In McMillin Companies, LLC v. American Safety Indemnity Co. the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District has provided some meaningful guidance on how a trial court should handle issues that regularly come up...

A Tenth Circuit decision examines whether a church's alleged failure to prevent multiple instances of sexual abuse by one perpetrator constitutes a single insurance "occurrence" or multiple occurrences, with significant implications for coverage limits and settlement aggregation. The court found the policy definitions ambiguous and ruled in favor of the church's interpretation that repeated exposure to dangerous conditions could constitute one occurrence.

In a huge victory for policyholders in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court has confirmed that policyholders may proceed with declaratory relief and bad faith claims against excess insurers without pleading actual exhaustion of underlying policy limits.

Over the past decade, courts across the country have delivered countless number of decisions on the scope of liability coverage for underlying construction defect claims.

In a win for Wiley's client, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed a trial court's determination that New York Insurance Law Section 3426's...

Addressing the issue of appellate jurisdiction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that an untimely filed corrected appeal does not provide a basis for appellate jurisdiction.

In an appeal of an interference decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) because the Board impermissibly relied on its own expertise to reach a conclusion not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of the patentee’s motion for partial relief from the district court’s final judgment of non-infringement and underlying claim construction.

Addressing the requirement of a "causal nexus" relating the alleged harm to the alleged infringement for a preliminary injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the district court.

A party who prevails on a judgment of non-infringement has no right to file a conditional cross-appeal seeking review of claim construction rulings in the event of reversal of the judgment of non-infringement.

The court granted leave for plaintiff to subpoena the purported defendant's ISP, but with significant and unusual caveats.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that dismissal of an opposition by the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) did not render an applicant’s counterclaim for cancellation moot and further upheld the Board’s holding on excusable neglect.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s extension of the well-established "sublicensing rule" from copyright and patent law, i.e., that a licensee is not entitled to sublicense the licensed rights to a third party without permission from the licensor, to the area of trademark law and related publicity rights.

Addressing for the first time the validity of a single claim covering both an apparatus and a method of using that apparatus, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit followed Ex parte Lyell, a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) case, which held such claims invalid.

Section 285 of the Patent Act provides: "The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party."

In June 2005, the Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (the committee) reviewed important suggested changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that will affect litigants in federal courts.