Day on Torts
OCTOBER 3, 2022
Defendant filed a petition for dismissal pursuant to the TPPA, and after finding that the TPPA applied, that plaintiff was a limited-purpose public figure in the context of this action, and that plaintiff “had not established a prima facie case for actual malice,” the trial court dismissed the case. The TPPA, Tenn.
JayS.Rothman&Associates
MAY 17, 2023
Protected Class Associational discrimination cases can be brought under various laws. This means that employees cannot suffer adverse actions simply because someone they associate with engaged in legally-protected activity, such as blowing the whistle. Employees who do suffer such actions may have a legal cause of action.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
When a litigant has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), that motion should be analyzed under the provisions of the TPPA rather than under the traditional Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12 analysis. This two step analysis was not followed by the trial court in this case. In Reiss v.
Patently O
MARCH 31, 2024
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit vacated a judgment of invalidity and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court’s jury instruction on objective indicia of nonobviousness constituted prejudicial legal error. The case, Inline Plastics Corp. Lacerta Group, LLC , No. 2022-1954 (Fed.
Patently O
DECEMBER 4, 2023
The court found that Dorel had established a prima facie case that Cozy’s founder, Dr. Arjuna Rajasingham, “manipulated the PTO into recognizing priority dates to which he was not entitled” and “relied on the advice of his counsel to perpetrate a fraud on the PTO.” quoting Mohawk Indus., Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100 (2009).
Patently O
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
Vidal (No 23-135): This case challenges the “ Fintiv rule” that restricts the initiation of inter partes review in cases where parallel district court litigation is pending. 23-315): This case questions the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of time limits for joining IPR partes. Traxcell Techs.
Conflict of Laws
JUNE 11, 2023
The Chinese Judgment recorded that: ‘[t]he defendant [Yin] failed to attend despite having been legally summoned to attend. Efthrim AsJ considered that the statement in the Chinese Judgment that Yin had ‘been legally summoned to attend’ was enough to defeat the natural justice defence: [2022] VSC 729, [74]–[79].
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content