Patently O
FEBRUARY 27, 2024
While these new guidelines are not legally binding, they offer important insight into how the Office plans to apply an even more flexible approach to obviousness — something Director Vidal sees as mandated by the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in KSR Int’l Co.
JayS.Rothman&Associates
MAY 17, 2023
These protections help safeguard employees against discrimination or retaliation which the law may not otherwise prohibit. What laws protect employees against associational discrimination? Protected Class Associational discrimination cases can be brought under various laws. 12112(b)(4).
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
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.
Day on Torts
JANUARY 11, 2022
Where plaintiff had filed complaints with the Board of Professional Responsibility (BPR) complaining of the same allegations that allegedly supported her legal malpractice claim, and those BPR complaints were filed more than one year before the legal malpractice suit was filed, summary judgment based on the statute of limitations was affirmed.
JURIST
JULY 28, 2021
This case originated in the trial court when the defendant Vince Lewis filed a petition, under a newly enacted law that took effect in January 2019, requesting counsel to challenge his murder conviction under that same law. The new law in question was California Senate Bill No.
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. See Graham v. 1 (1966).
Day on Torts
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
6) standard, which challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff’s proof or evidence, and requires the court to construe the complaint liberally, presuming all factual allegations to be true and giving the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences.” internal citations omitted).
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
120 
Let's personalize your content