Supreme Court Ruling in Stanford Financial Case on SLUSA Leaves Madoff Victims Wondering “Why Not Us?”

In a legal environment that seems to be growing increasingly difficult for Ponzi scheme victims to recover their losses, the United States Supreme Court gave a group of defrauded investors some welcome news. The Court issued its decision in Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice et al. , 2014 U.S. LEXIS...

The Joy of SOX: What Employee Activity Is "Protected"?

Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act apply, not only to employees of publicly-held companies, but also to employees of contractors who do work for publicly-held companies , I thought it might be helpful to review exactly what type of activity...

Professor Kenneth N. Klee on the Supreme Court's Holding in Law v. Siegel

Professor Kenneth Klee analyzes the March 4, 2014 Supreme Court ruling in Law v. Siegel which held that a bankruptcy court exceeds its authority when it permits a surcharge on a debtor's otherwise exempt assets to pay administrative expenses incurred as a result of a chapter 7 debtor's misconduct...

Supreme Court Affirms: False Advertising Counterclaimant Has Standing

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that “to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under” Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act, “a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation...

Supreme Court Holds Certain Severance Payments Are Taxable Wages for FICA Purposes

On March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. , 572 U.S. ___ (2014), No. 12-1408 [ an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com subscribers ], that severance payments made to employees involuntarily terminated in connection with Quality Stores’...

Supreme Court Will Hear Dispute Over De Novo Claim Construction Review

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The question of which standard — de novo or only for clear error — the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should apply when reviewing a district court’s factual findings in support of a claim construction in patent cases will be argued at...

U.S. Supreme Court Will Not Hear Bankruptcy Lien Case Brought by Bank of America

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court today said it would not hear a case in which Bank of America had argued that the high court needed to resolve a split at the federal appellate level dealing with whether a Chapter 7 debtor may “strip off,” or void, a valid junior...

Pom Wonderful Brings Food Labeling Dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court: When Are Claims Based On Allegedly Improper Product Labeling Barred by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?

by Claudia M. Vetesi and Lisa A. Wongchenko A long-standing false advertising dispute between beverage companies Pom Wonderful and Coca-Cola has reached the United States Supreme Court and carries far-reaching implications for other food labeling litigation. On January 10, 2014, the Supreme Court granted...

U.S. Supreme Court Court Will Not Hear Debt Payment Case Involving American Airlines

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear a case in which U.S. Bank Trust NA (U.S. Bank) argued that bankrupt AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines Inc., owed its bondholders a penalty fee related to the repayment of debt for which it had obtained...

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in False Advertising Case

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) An attorney for The Coca-Cola Co. told the U.S. Supreme Court today that a dispute over the veracity of a fruit juice label does not fall within the purview of the Lanham Act ( POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co. , No. 12-761, U.S. Sup.; See 1/21/14, Page...

Supreme Court Will Determine What Exercises Right to Rescind Under TILA

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court today granted a petition brought by a couple seeking a determination whether a letter or lawsuit is necessary to properly exercise the right to rescind under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) ( Larry D. Jesinoski, et al. v. Countrywide Home...

Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over Patent Indefiniteness Standard

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealeys’) A patent claim is not rendered indefinite simply because it requires interpretation between two or more competing readings, a government attorney told the U.S. Supreme Court on April 28 ( Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc. , No. 13-369, U.S. Sup.; See 1...

Induced Infringement Standard Debated at Supreme Court

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday expressed uncertainty about how best to proceed in a dispute that poses the question of whether induced patent infringement liability can be established without also proving direct infringement ( Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai...

Hopelessly Confused SLUSA Issues for Ponzi Scheme Victims Following Troice?

As reported in The Ponzi Scheme Blog , the Supreme Court recently issued an important decision further defining the boundaries of SLUSA – the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998. Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice , 2014 U.S. LEXIS 1644 (Feb. 26, 2014) [ an enhanced version of...

U.S. Supreme Court: No Inducement Liability Without Direct Infringement

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a unanimous holding today, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under 35 U.S. Code Section 271(b) when no one has directly infringed under Section 271(a) or “any other statutory provision” ( Limelight Networks Inc...

Supreme Court Defines Standard For Holding a Patent Indefinite

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey's) Vacating an April 2013 ruling by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court held June 2 that “a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent’s specification and prosecution history, fail to inform...

Nautilus Decision to Drive PGR and CBM Filings

Decision Indirectly Highlights Value of Post-Grant Challenges Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” framework for analyzing indefiniteness was, well…. indefinite. In Nautilus Inc. v Biosig Instruments, Inc., the court found that...

Fitch Even IP Alert: Supreme Court Addresses Definiteness Requirement for Patent Claims

The U.S. Patent Act requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctively claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention.” In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. , the U.S. Supreme Court addressed...

Did the Second Circuit Get SLUSA Right in the Madoff Ponzi Scheme Case?

In a very short and summary opinion, the Second Circuit concluded that nothing in a recent Supreme Court decision gave it any reason to revisit its prior ruling that SLUSA bars state law class action claims against banks in connection with the Bernard Madoff scheme. In re Herald, Primeo, and Thema ,...

Supreme Court: Food Label Challenges Are Allowable Under Lanham Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in holding that a private party cannot allege Lanham Act false advertising in connection with a product label regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today...

Divided High Court: Aereo’s Internet Transmissions Constitute Public Performances

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) A U.S. Supreme Court majority today found that the Internet transmission of copyrighted broadcast television programs provided by Aereo Inc. constitute public performances per the “transmit clause” of the Copyright Act, reversing the Second Circuit...

U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Appeal on EEOC’s Duty to Conciliate

WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The U.S. Supreme Court this morning granted a petition for writ of certiorari in an appeal of a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision finding that an alleged failure to conciliate is not an affirmative defense to the merits of a discrimination suit ...

Professor Kenneth N. Klee on the Supreme Court's Holding in Clark v. Rameker

Excerpt: ARTICLE: I. The Lesson to Be Learned: Despite a long line of precedent broadly construing a debtor's exemptions, the Court will break from a textualist plain-meaning statutory construction when such a construction would undermine what the Court believes to be congressional intent in...

LaFrance on Standing to Bring False Advertising Claims under the Lanham Act: Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Excerpt: Who has standing to bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act? In Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 2014 US LEXIS 2214 (Mar. 25, 2014), the Supreme Court ended a three-way circuit split, and held that standing is not limited to direct competitors [an enhanced...

LaFrance on Federal False Advertising Claims Arising From FDA-Compliant Labels: POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

Excerpt: In its second false advertising case this term, in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4165 (June 12, 2014), the Supreme Court held that a misleading food or beverage label may be actionable under the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act even if the label satisfies...