Appellate

As we prepare for the next Supreme Court term, we’d like to look back at some of the most significant opinions from the last session and their potential impact on corporate regulation. Of the dozens of opinions issued by the United States Supreme Court in the 2023-2024 term, a set of four cases is notable for their collective reworking of administrative law

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely-watched SEC v. Jarkesy, holding that the SEC could no longer seek civil monetary penalties for fraud in its in-house courts consistent with the Seventh Amendment, which grants the right to a jury trial and thus requires such cases to be heard in federal court. The Supreme Court’s decision has potentially profound implications, not only for the SEC’s regulation of the securities industry, but for dozens of federal administrative agencies that, depending on the authorizing statute, can or must impose civil penalties through administrative proceedings.

In a reversal that came as no surprise to many observers, on Tuesday, August 11, 2020, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in FTC v. Qualcomm and vacated the district court’s worldwide, permanent injunction prohibiting several of Qualcomm Incorporated’s (“Qualcomm”) licensing practices with respect to standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) covering cellular technology.

Companies in many industries are integrating artificial intelligence into their products despite a decline in US AI patent filings driven by uncertainty about the patentability of software. Advances in machine learning are spurring the increased interest in AI.

The heady days of 2012 saw “Gangnam Style” dominate the U.S. music charts, Patricia Krentcil rocket to fame as the “New Jersey Tanning Mom,” and the New York Giants win the Super Bowl.

On April 14 in Washington, DC, Global Competition Review hosted its Second Annual IP & Antitrust USA conference.

On February 5, 2015, Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 9, entitled the “Innovation Act.”

On February 8, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) approved changes to the IEEE Patent Policy that provide additional specificity as to the nature of the obligation attaching to member-owned patents that are essential to an IEEE standard.

Currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is Carnegie Mellon University’s (“CMU”) $1.535 billion judgment for patent infringement against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. and Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. (collectively “Marvell”), which is one of the largest damages awards for patent infringement in history.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l on patentable subject matter, courts have tried to follow the prescribed framework.

On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC.