Supreme Court Scratches Laches

My eyes usually glaze over about halfway through the opening paragraph of any judicial decision involving patent infringement.  But the Supreme Court’s March 21, 2017 opinion in SGA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, No. 15-927, kept my attention.  The issue was whether the equitable defense of “laches” can bar a patent infringement suit […]

Supreme Court Scratches Laches Read More »

Current Eight-Justice Court Agrees To Tackle Complex Litigation Issues That May Affect Businesses

Perhaps in anticipation of soon being joined by a ninth Justice, the Supreme Court agreed in mid-January to decide a number of litigation-related issues that may directly affect U.S. businesses: Because each of these issues has the potential to affect a broad range of U.S. businesses and industries, each of the Supreme Court cases in which they

Current Eight-Justice Court Agrees To Tackle Complex Litigation Issues That May Affect Businesses Read More »

Supreme Court’s FCA Seal Violation Opinion Lacks Needed Guidance

The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15­513 (Dec. 6, 2016), is a disappointingly narrow decision. It merely holds that dismissal of a False Claims Act qui tam suit for violation of the “seal” provision, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(2), is not mandatory.

Supreme Court’s FCA Seal Violation Opinion Lacks Needed Guidance Read More »

Supreme Court Punts On Another Federal Preemption Product-Liability Conundrum

What do prescription drugs, motor boats, pesticides, automobiles, medical devices, locomotives, cigarettes, vaccines, and oil tankers have in common?  During the past 25 years, each has been the subject of at least one Supreme Court opinion concerning federal preemption of state-law product liability claims.  No uniform rule has emerged from those opinions (e.g., there is

Supreme Court Punts On Another Federal Preemption Product-Liability Conundrum Read More »

Justices Should Consider Harm To Qui Tam Defendants

The unresolved question debated at the November 1 U.S. Supreme Court hearing in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513, involves the standard for dismissing a False Claims Act qui tam suit where the relator (i.e., whistleblower plaintiff), or the relator’s attorney, willfully violates the statute’s mandatory seal

Justices Should Consider Harm To Qui Tam Defendants Read More »

Abu Ghraib Contractor Still Faces Potential Tort Liability for Alleged Detainee Abuse

The Iraq War is still being fought, but in the federal courts rather than on foreign battlefields.  On October 21, 2016, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued what is probably the most refined and nuanced opinion of any federal court on the question of whether the political question

Abu Ghraib Contractor Still Faces Potential Tort Liability for Alleged Detainee Abuse Read More »

Text Trumps Policy in Supreme Court False Claims Act “Implied Certification” Decision

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7 (June 16, 2016), will trigger weeks of commentary, months of debate, and years of litigation on how courts should apply the “implied false certification theory” of False Claims Act liability. But as discussed below, I believe that there

Text Trumps Policy in Supreme Court False Claims Act “Implied Certification” Decision Read More »

Labor Department “Switcheroo” Gets No Respect From Supreme Court

According to Webster’s, a “switcheroo” is “an unexpected reversal or change.”  When a federal department or agency pulls a switcheroo on the public or an industry by abruptly reversing a long-held interpretation of a key statutory phrase, there can be serious economic or other consequences for those who are affected.  In an opinion issued on

Labor Department “Switcheroo” Gets No Respect From Supreme Court Read More »

Justices Reject U.S. Attempt To Muddy The Waters On “Finality”

The federal Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 704, authorizes companies or individuals to obtain judicial review when they are aggrieved by “final agency action.” This long-standing statutory right to go to court to challenge final actions by federal departments and agencies is sacrosanct among federally regulated industries and companies. In a unanimous decision

Justices Reject U.S. Attempt To Muddy The Waters On “Finality” Read More »

Spokeo “Standing” Ruling Not Cast In Concrete

In a much anticipated decision, the Supreme Court held today in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339, that alleging a “bare procedural violation” of a federal statute may not be enough to confer a plaintiff with standing to sue. On the other hand, the Court’s 6-2 opinion, authored by Justice Alito, indicated that “the violation

Spokeo “Standing” Ruling Not Cast In Concrete Read More »

Scroll to Top