Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
Employment attorneys say the breadth of new state laws — and the pace at which they are going into effect — means in-house counsel at companies trying to create workarounds for employees in states with restrictive abortion laws by providing benefits that would allow them to travel out-of-state to access abortion services will need to be on high alert, since keeping up on top of the laws will be key to limiting their exposure to litigation — or even criminal penalties.
Features
In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Arthrex that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers. The PTO later decided that it would not accept requests for director review of institution decisions. This policy is now also being questioned in Arthrex's wake.
Features
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a sign regulation as it related to directional signs placed by a local congregation that held services at different locations each week. In April 2022, the Court took another look at the issue of strict scrutiny relating to "off-premises" signs in City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising.
Features
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to a sign regulation as it related to directional signs placed by a local congregation that held services at different locations each week. The Court took another look at the issue of strict scrutiny relating to "off-premises" signs in the case of City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising , in which the majority concluded that strict scrutiny should not apply to determining whether the off-premises sign regulations at issue violated the First Amendment.
Features
The Ninth Circuit had ruled in 2020 that §411(b)(1)(A) of the federal Copyright Act excuses inadvertent mistakes of fact on copyright registrations but not mistakes of law. The Supreme Court has now ruled 6-3 that the provision covers both mistakes of facts and law.
Features
Some of the major issues the court addressed in the Unicolors oral argument, and some questions that are likely to remain open no matter the outcome.
Features
There's a split among circuit courts on whether tax foreclosure sales may be avoidable as preferential and fraudulent transfers by property owners who subsequently seek relief under the Bankruptcy Code. If the Supreme Court eventually weighs in to resolve this circuit split, property owners, municipalities, and potential bidders for tax liens across the country will receive greater clarity on this critical issue.
Features
'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.
Features
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.
Features
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.
