Intellectual Property Practice Group Podcast Gregory Dolin June 25, 2015
In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, citing stare decisis, the Court held that a patent holder cannot charge royalties for the use of his invention after its patent term has expired. In so holding, the Court affirmed a 60 year-old case along the same lines. But in yesterday’s decision, three justices dissented, stating that “[t] he Court employs stare decisis, normally a tool of restraint, to reaffirm a clear case of judicial overreach.” Should the Court have reversed course?
Environmental Law & Property Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
John Elwood June 25, 2015
Under what circumstances can the government take your property without giving you compensation? Does it matter whether it is real property or personal property? On June 22, with an interesting alignment of justices, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Horne v. Department of Agriculture, addressing these and other questions.
SCOTUScast 6-5-15 featuring Marcia Madsen and Christopher Bowen
- John Elwood, Partner, Vinson & Elkins LLP
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Carter. This case involves two questions. The first question is whether the statute of limitations for a claim of civil fraud against the federal government brought by a relator (private individual bringing suit on behalf of the government) can be indefinitely tolled by the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA). The second question asks whether the False Claims Act's "first-to-file" rule, which presents an incentive for relators to be the first to bring claims of fraud, simply requires that only one case can be pending at a time or requires that once a case has been filed, all cases based upon the same facts and alleging the same type of fraud are barred.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court, which held that 1) the WSLA applies only to criminal, not civil, claims and 2) that the FCA’s first to file bar only keeps claims out of court while related claims are still active, not in perpetuity, and that petitioner’s reading of the term “pending” as being synonymous with first filed would improperly bar suits having nothing to do with the merits of the case.
To discuss the case, we have Marcia G. Madsen, who is a Partner at Mayer Brown and Christopher A. Bowen, who is an Associate at Arent Fox LLP. Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group Podcast
Eugene Volokh June 04, 2015
Many states make money by letting a wide range of groups order specialty license plates for their members. The specialty plates tend to convey a message or an affiliation. May a state reject a proposed plate because it deals with “politically sensitive and emotionally charged issues?" More specifically, may a state forbid a “Choose Life” specialty plate, but allow a “Union Yes” plate and one that says “Support Police?” The Second Circuit just upheld such a policy, by a 2-to-1 vote. Is the decision consistent with the First Amendment?
Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group Podcast
- Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
On Tuesday, May 26, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from federal government lawyers to overturn a lower court injunction, and to thereby allow President Barack Obama's immigration actions to go into effect pending appeal. What now are the legal effects of the President’s immigration actions? What are the possible next steps in the litigation? These and other questions were answered on this Teleforum Conference call.
- Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, Chapman University School of Law