'Purdue Pharma' Looms Although four cases presenting important bankruptcy issues were teed up for the Supreme Court's consideration this term, the Court denied certiorari for each. Each of these petitions involve splits among the circuit courts of appeals, influencing choice of venue and the extent to which bankruptcy decisions are subject to meaningful appeal.
The 'Unicolors' case highlights the value of copyright registration, not only for creators who rely on the exclusivity of their content for making a living, but also for anyone with copyright eligible works in their IP portfolio.
The Van Buren decision fits into a pattern of the court's modern criminal law jurisprudence that appears motivated by concerns about the ever-expanding reach and severity of federal criminal law.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz to address the following question: "Did the Ninth Circuit err in breaking with its own prior precedent and the findings of other circuits and the Copyright Office in holding that 17 U.S.C. §411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration?"
With federal student loan forbearance set to expire at the end of September, many hoped the high court would provide, if not clarity, at least uniformity for the millions of Americans who currently are on the hook for student loans.
Nearly a century after endorsing the doctrine of assignor estoppel, the Court concluded that it applies "when, but only when, the assignor's claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations he made in assigning the patent."
The Supreme Court is considering a petition in a §101 case, in which the Federal Circuit split six-to-six in denying rehearing en banc, and in which the Supreme Court recently called for the views of the Solicitor General.
The Court held that only those who obtain information from particular areas of the computer which they are not authorized to access can be said to "exceed authorization," and the statute does not — as the government had argued — cover behavior where a person accesses information which he is authorized to access but does so for improper purposes.
The Court held that only those who obtain information from particular areas of the computer which they are not authorized to access can be said to "exceed authorization."
In a decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that the statutory scheme appointing PTAB administrative patent judges (APJs) to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
