Supreme Court and Patents: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v Sandoz, Inc. Intellectual Property Practice Group Courthouse Steps Teleforum January 30, 01:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
On January 20. 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The question in the case was the level of deference the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must give to a trial court’s interpretation of patent claims.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court altered the long-standing practice of the Federal Circuit to review patent claim constructions de novo, holding that a trial court’s resolution of “subsidiary factual matters” made while interpreting patent claims must be reviewed for clear error. The ultimate interpretation of the claim terms, however, remains subject to de novo review.
Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. Kristen Osenga, University of Richmond School of Law
On Tuesday, January 20, the Supreme Court heard argument in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, a First Amendment case involving the manner in which elected judges may raise campaign funds for themselves. The issue is whether a widely adopted provision of the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds, violates the First Amendment. Personal solicitation of campaign funds raises concerns that prospective or sitting judges might favor or disfavor litigants and attorneys based on how they responded to such solicitation. On the other side of the issue, once States have decided to elect judges, free political speech becomes a critical component of any fair and democratic election process. In addition to broader arguments regarding the proper scope and function of the First Amendment in the context of judicial elections, this case will involve more focused First Amendment questions regarding whether the current rule, as adopted in Florida, is actually effective in preserving the existence or appearance of impartiality and whether there are less restrictive means – such as recusal – to further such goals.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC
- M. Edward Whelan III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center
Todd F. Gaziano January 22, 2015
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc. The Supreme Court has previously attempted twice to hear cases reaching the question of whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act, in Magner v. Gallagher and Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, and in both instances the cases were settled less than a month before oral arguments. The Fair Housing Act makes it illegal to “refuse to sell or rent . . . or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race.” Do policies that can be demonstrated to have a discriminatory effect on certain racial groups, without a showing of discriminatory intent, violate the statute?
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required by the 1978 Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act to submit all proposed regulations to the federal Science Advisory Board (SAB) for peer review. However, in 2011 the EPA issued regulations establishing greenhouse gas emission and fuel efficiency standards both for cars and for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles (the Car Rule and the Truck Rule) without submitting either proposed rule to the SAB. On Friday, January 9, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a consolidated case that will determine the legal remedy for these alleged violations of administrative procedure. Ted Hadzi-Antich of the Pacific Legal Foundation argued the case before the D.C. Circuit Court, and he discussed the case and the oral arguments on a live Teleforum conference call.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Theodore Hadzi-Antich, Senior Staff Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
The battle over the use of affirmative action in college admissions seems far from over, as the recent filing of two federal lawsuits demonstrates. The Project for Fair Representation recently sued both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for allegedly capping the number of Asian-Americans they admit and using racial classifications to engage in invidious discrimination. Edward Blum and William Consovoy provided a litigation update on these and other cases.
- Edward Blum, Director, The Project on Fair Representation
- William Consovoy, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC