Podcasts about federal circuit

This Day in Legal History: People v. Ruggles and the Transposition of a “Common Law Crime”On June 11, 1811, the New York Supreme Court of Judicature decided People v. Ruggles, a seminal case in early American constitutional law and one of the rare recorded convictions for blasphemy in U.S. history. John Ruggles was convicted for publicly declaring in a tavern that “Jesus Christ was a b*****d and his mother must be a w***e,” and was sentenced to three months in jail and fined $500. What made the decision historically significant was Chancellor James Kent's justification: he upheld the conviction by transposing the English common law crime of blasphemy into American jurisprudence, despite the existence of a state constitutional provision protecting religious freedom.Kent argued that the free exercise clause of the New York Constitution—similar to the First Amendment—guaranteed religious tolerance but did not protect speech deemed immoral or dangerous to public order. He defined blasphemy as “maliciously reviling God, or religion,” and asserted that Americans, like the English, required religion-based moral discipline to maintain social cohesion. Crucially, Kent held that blasphemy applied only to Christianity, stating that “we are a Christian people,” and that moral and legal norms in the U.S. were “ingrafted upon Christianity.”This decision represented a foundational moment in American law by carrying forward a religiously grounded common law principle into a supposedly secular, constitutional framework. Kent cited Sunday observance laws and other religious references in law as evidence that Christianity remained embedded in the legal culture. He acknowledged tolerance for other religions but did not extend legal protection to speech critical of Christianity.The decision aligned with Justice Joseph Story's later view that Christianity underpinned American common law, but stood in contrast to the secularist interpretation advanced by figures like Thomas Jefferson. Though Kent's reasoning carried weight in his era, it would eventually lose ground. In Burstyn v. Wilson (1952), the U.S. Supreme Court effectively invalidated blasphemy laws, ruling that speech critical of religion was protected under the First Amendment.A federal appeals court has ruled that President Trump's sweeping tariffs may remain in effect while legal challenges to their legality proceed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. paused a lower-court decision that found Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs. The court called the matter one of “exceptional importance” and took the rare step of assigning it to the full 11-judge panel, with oral arguments scheduled for July 31.The tariffs in question include broad duties on imports from most U.S. trading partners—nicknamed “Liberation Day” tariffs—as well as separate levies targeting Canada, China, and Mexico. Trump has claimed that the tariffs are justified under IEEPA due to threats like fentanyl trafficking and the ongoing trade deficit. Critics argue these are not legitimate emergencies under the law and that only Congress has the constitutional power to impose tariffs.The original ruling striking down the tariffs came from the U.S. Court of International Trade on May 28, in lawsuits brought by five small businesses and twelve states led by Oregon. That court found Trump's use of IEEPA overreached presidential authority and misapplied a law designed for national emergencies. While disappointed by the stay, the plaintiffs emphasized that no court has yet upheld Trump's broad claims under IEEPA.Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, US appeals court rules | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently dismissed two more employees who were involved in investigations concerning President Trump, bringing the total number of terminations related to those probes to 17 since Trump's return to power in January. One of the fired individuals had served as a lawyer on Special Counsel Jack Smith's team and previously prosecuted defendants involved in the January 6 Capitol attack. The other was a support staff member also tied to Smith's team. Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly ordered the dismissals. Although both had been reassigned to other DOJ divisions prior to their termination, their past involvement with the Trump investigations was cited as the likely reason for their firing.Earlier, on January 27, 14 attorneys were dismissed at once due to their work on Trump-related cases. In April, a longtime public affairs official who had represented Smith's team was also let go. The DOJ has not officially commented on the recent terminations. Trump has persistently claimed that the Justice Department unfairly targeted him for political reasons, though Smith's team consistently rejected that narrative in court. These firings raise new concerns about political influence over the DOJ's personnel decisions.US Justice Department fires two tied to Trump probes, people familiar say | ReutersA group of Tesla owners in France has filed a lawsuit against the automaker, claiming that CEO Elon Musk's public behavior and political alignments have caused them reputational harm. Represented by law firm GKA, about ten leaseholders are asking the Paris Commercial Court to cancel their vehicle contracts and recover legal costs. They argue that Tesla cars, once seen as eco-friendly innovations, are now perceived as far-right symbols due to Musk's vocal support for Donald Trump and Germany's far-right AfD party.The plaintiffs allege that Musk's political affiliations and controversial gestures—such as one during Trump's inauguration that was likened online to a Nazi salute because it was absolutely a Nazi salute—have made Tesla ownership socially and professionally damaging. The group also cites Musk's involvement in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-backed initiative to reduce public spending, as further evidence of his deep political entanglements. Public backlash against Musk has included protests and vandalism at Tesla showrooms across Europe and the U.S.This lawsuit comes amid declining Tesla sales in Europe, where customers are increasingly turning to competitively priced Chinese EVs. GKA emphasized that its clients purchased Tesla vehicles for their environmental and technological appeal, not as political statements. Tesla has not yet responded to the lawsuit. Musk recently acknowledged regretting some of his remarks on X, the platform he owns, after a public dispute with Trump.Some French Tesla drivers file lawsuit over harm allegedly caused by Musk's behaviour | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Arguendo, Amy Odom and Amy Kretkowsi return from hiatus to unpack Deal v. Collins, a Federal Circuit case that challenges the reach of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). They explore the history and implications of legacy regulations on effective dates, dissect arguments presented by both sides, and consider how this case could shape the future of pending claim doctrine. They also discuss its potential impact on other cases. Tune in to learn more!For more information, visit our websites at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠cck-law.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and abkveteranslaw.com

The Court of International Trade—whatever that is—enjoined Trump's tariffs. But the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit imposed an administrative stay pending further briefing. We also cover:Defending a Zoom depo? If you refuse to go on camera and are accused of improper witness communication, you may be sanctioned. (Remote depos are a game-changer—woe betide the attorney who screws it up for the rest of us!)Case settled, but wire of settled funds intercepted by scammers. Who bears the burden depends on the circumstances—best practice is to put the wire info in the agreement itself.Fee awards, abuse of discretion, and dueling precedents: Cash v. County of LA vs. Snoeck v. Exactime.Supreme Court review granted in Maniago: Is a voluntary dismissal after a loss appealable?Appearing at sentencing, Tom Girardi's pants fall down—but he still gets 87 months.Big Oral Argument News: Remote oral arguments are now available statewide without need to show good cause.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Beware using the Judicial Council form dismissal

This week Trump got his ass kicked in courts no one's ever heard of! From tariffs to immigration, Harvard to WilmerHale, it's been a week of losing bigly. Andrew and Liz will break it down and explain what's next.   Links:   Harvard College v. Department of Health and Human Services [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69921962/president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college-v-us-department-of-health-and/   V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump [District Court Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69888953/vos-selections-inc-v-donald-j-trump   V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump [Federal Circuit Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70394463/vos-selections-inc-v-trump/   WilmerHale v. Trump [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807328/wilmer-cutler-pickering-hale-and-dorr-llp-v-executive-office-of-the/   Jenner & Block v. DOJ [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69807126/jenner-block-llp-v-us-department-of-justice/   MTA v. Duffy (Congestion Pricing) [Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69652290/metropolitan-transportation-authority-v-duffy/   D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security [Trial Docket via Court Listener] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69775896/dvd-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/   Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. [SCOTUS Docket] https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a1153.html   The Punch That Launched Trump's War on American Universities https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/trump-college-university-federal-funding-fight-91c2a274   How to Hide a Constitutional Crisis https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/05/legalistic-noncompliance/682927/   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod  

This Day in Legal History: Trump Guilty on All CountsOn this day in legal history, May 30, 2024, President Donald J. Trump was convicted on all 34 felony counts in a criminal trial related to a hush money scheme during the 2016 presidential campaign. The case centered on falsified business records used to conceal payments made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, intended to silence her allegations of an affair in the run-up to the election. The charges—each tied to entries in the Trump Organization's internal ledger—were elevated to felonies on the basis that they were committed in furtherance of another crime, namely influencing the outcome of a federal election.The trial, held in New York State Supreme Court, marked an unprecedented legal moment in U.S. history: a former president, and presumptive candidate in the upcoming election, being found guilty of criminal conduct. Prosecutors argued that Trump orchestrated the payments to suppress damaging information and maintain his electoral chances, while his defense claimed the case was politically motivated and the records reflected routine legal expenses.The conviction did not bar Trump from running for office again, but it did raise serious constitutional, electoral, and logistical questions about the rule of law and the separation of powers. The verdict was reached by a jury of 12 New Yorkers after weeks of testimony from former aides, prosecutors, and key witnesses like Michael Cohen, Trump's onetime fixer.Trump's sentencing was scheduled for a future date, and appeals were expected. Reactions across the political spectrum were predictably polarized, with critics calling it accountability at last, while supporters denounced the trial as a miscarriage of justice. Legal scholars noted the symbolic weight of the decision in reaffirming that no one—including a former president—is above the law.The U.S. Department of Justice and several states are wrapping up a major antitrust case against Google, with closing arguments scheduled for Friday. At issue is whether Google must sell its Chrome browser and stop default search engine deals with companies like Apple and wireless carriers, which the DOJ says stifles competition. These proposals follow a prior court finding that Google unlawfully monopolized online search and advertising markets.Judge Amit Mehta, who is presiding over the case, expects to issue a ruling by August. The DOJ is also pushing for Google to share its search data, which could benefit AI companies. OpenAI has expressed interest in purchasing Chrome if a divestiture occurs and noted that access to Google's search data would improve its AI responses.Google argues that the DOJ's proposed remedies overreach and would unfairly advantage competitors. The company has already taken some steps, such as loosening default search engine deals with phone manufacturers like Samsung. However, the government wants a full ban on payments that secure Google's search dominance on devices.Google and DOJ to make final push in US search antitrust case | ReutersA federal appeals court has temporarily reinstated President Trump's wide-ranging tariffs after a lower trade court ruled they exceeded presidential authority. The stay, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allows the tariffs—targeting imports from most trading partners and specifically Canada, Mexico, and China—to remain in effect while the appeals process unfolds. The plaintiffs and the government must submit legal arguments by early June.The U.S. Court of International Trade previously found that Trump misused the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which is designed for national emergencies, not trade disputes. The panel emphasized that Congress, not the president, holds constitutional power to impose tariffs. Trump and his administration remain defiant, vowing to pursue alternative legal pathways if needed. Trump criticized the ruling publicly, warning it would weaken presidential power and harm national interests.Financial markets responded cautiously, factoring in the likelihood of a drawn-out legal process. Some companies, like small businesses represented by the Liberty Justice Center, argue the tariffs threaten their survival due to disrupted supply chains. Broader economic impacts include $34 billion in losses and stalled negotiations with key partners. Notably, separate national security-based tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars remain unaffected.Trump's tariffs to remain in effect after appeals court grants stay | ReutersTrump's latest tax-and-spending bill, dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," includes a provision that could significantly limit federal courts' power to enforce contempt orders against the government. The measure, buried in the 1,100-page bill, would block courts from enforcing contempt if plaintiffs did not post a monetary bond when seeking an injunction—a practice rarely required in lawsuits against the government.The provision applies retroactively and would affect both lower courts and the Supreme Court. Critics say it could effectively prevent courts from holding government officials accountable for ignoring judicial orders, as most past injunctions didn't involve posted bonds. While the administration says the measure is aimed at deterring frivolous lawsuits, legal experts warn it undermines judicial authority and incentivizes noncompliance.This change comes after a Trump administration memo encouraged agencies to request bonds in litigation. Judges have previously flagged possible defiance of court orders by administration officials but have stopped short of issuing contempt rulings. In one recent case over tariffs, a judge set a bond at just $100, overruling a higher request by the government.The House narrowly passed the bill without any Democratic support. It now moves to the Senate, where some Republicans have expressed intentions to amend it. A group of House Democrats has already called for the contempt provision to be removed, arguing it would render courts ineffective in enforcing lawful orders.Trump's sweeping tax-cut bill includes provision to weaken court powers | ReutersThe U.S. Justice Department has asked a judge to dismiss the criminal fraud charge against Boeing tied to two deadly 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people, following a new agreement with the company. Under the deal, Boeing avoids a felony conviction but will pay an additional $444.5 million into a victims' compensation fund and a $243.6 million fine, bringing the total to $1.1 billion. The sum includes investments in safety, compliance, and quality enhancements.This resolution has drawn strong criticism from families of crash victims and some lawmakers, who argue that Boeing should face trial. While most families have settled civil lawsuits and received billions in compensation, several legal representatives are planning to challenge the agreement. The Justice Department defended the deal, stating it ensures accountability and public benefit while avoiding a potentially uncertain trial outcome.As part of the agreement, Boeing's board must meet with victims' families, and the company will hire a compliance consultant instead of facing court-appointed oversight. The deal halts a planned June 23 trial over Boeing's alleged deception of U.S. regulators regarding a key flight control system implicated in the crashes.US asks judge to dismiss Boeing 737 MAX criminal fraud case | ReutersThis week's closing theme brings us to one of the towering figures of Classical music: Joseph Haydn. Born in 1732 and known as the “Father of the Symphony” and “Father of the String Quartet,” Haydn's influence shaped the musical landscape of his time and set the foundation for generations of composers to come, including his younger contemporaries Mozart and Beethoven. Though widely celebrated for his symphonic and chamber works, Haydn also made remarkable contributions to keyboard music—works that showcase both his wit and structural innovation.Our selection is the first movement, Vivace, from his Keyboard Concerto in D major, Hob. XVIII:11, arguably his most famous and frequently performed keyboard concerto. Composed in the mid-1770s, the piece bursts with energy and clarity, reflecting Haydn's mature style. The Vivace movement is bright, spirited, and rhythmically engaging, with a dialogue between soloist and orchestra that feels playful yet assured.What makes this concerto particularly special is its balance of accessibility and sophistication. The melodies are immediately appealing, but the musical craftsmanship runs deep—complex harmonic turns, sparkling ornamentation, and a joyful momentum that never wanes. In the Classical tradition, this was written for the harpsichord or fortepiano, but it's often performed on modern piano today, bringing a different resonance and brilliance to the sound.As we close the week, Haydn's Vivace offers a fitting send-off: lively, inventive, and rooted in a composer who, even two centuries later, continues to surprise and delight.Without further ado, Joseph Haydn's Vivace – Keyboard Concerto in D Major. Enjoy!  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Bruce and Barry Markson explain why tariffs are still on the table according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

After the U.S. Court of International Trade strikes down some of Donald Trump's tariffs as a violation of his authority as president, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit pauses the decision pending further arguments. So what happens next, and will Trump win on appeal to the Supreme Court? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A U.S. District Court judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration not to make any changes to Harvard's student visa program. That's after Justice Department attorneys said in a notice that the government will give Harvard University 30 days to provide evidence in response to the White House's move to strip the Ivy League college of its ability to enroll foreign students.The Trump administration filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit after a federal trade court ruled that President Trump exceeded his authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners.

Chief Justice John Roberts recently called out the Trump administration for their threats to impeach judges who have ruled against them. In response to these threats to the judiciary, the Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, composed of over twenty former federal district and circuit judges  appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, defended the federal judiciary, as political impeachment attempts against judges increase and the federal courts system face heightened scrutiny. In this episode, Craig is joined by Chief Judge Paul R. Michel, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and member of Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition. Together, Craig and Judge Michel discuss the calls for impeachment of judges by the current administration, and how a coalition of judges is fighting back. Mentioned in this Episode: Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition

Chief Justice John Roberts recently called out the Trump administration for their threats to impeach judges who have ruled against them. In response to these threats to the judiciary, the Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition, composed of over twenty former federal district and circuit judges  appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama, defended the federal judiciary, as political impeachment attempts against judges increase and the federal courts system face heightened scrutiny. In this episode, Craig is joined by Chief Judge Paul R. Michel, formerly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and member of Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition. Together, Craig and Judge Michel discuss the calls for impeachment of judges by the current administration, and how a coalition of judges is fighting back. Mentioned in this Episode: Keep Our Republic's Article III Coalition Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim involving "retired pay" under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation the Court was presented with the question of whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. The Federal Circuit had initially held that Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the FAA and reserve officer in the coast guard was not entitled to differential pay for parts of his time when he had been called to active duty during the early and mid-2010s. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on December 9, 2024, and on April 30, 2025 a 5-4 court reversed the decision below. Justice Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, and Justice Thomas wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justices Alito, Kagan, and Jackson. Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze the decision and the opinions, and discuss the potential ramifications of this case. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law (Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.The case was decided on April 30, 2025.Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller with the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve petty officer, was called to active duty in July 2012 under 10 U-S-C §12301(d). He served until February 2017, primarily escorting vessels to and from harbor. Despite his active-duty service, Feliciano did not receive differential pay, which compensates federal civilian employees for the pay gap between their civilian and military salaries when called to active duty during a national emergency.Feliciano sought relief from the Merit Systems Protection Board, claiming he was unlawfully denied differential pay. The Board rejected his claim, and Feliciano appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He argued that under 5 U-S-C §5538(a) and 10 U-S-C §101(a)(13)(B), he was entitled to differential pay because he was called to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency. The Federal Circuit, referencing its decision in Adams v Department of Homeland Security, held that Feliciano needed to show a substantive connection between his service and a particular national emergency, which he failed to do.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and reversed the Federal Circuit's decision. The Court held that a federal civilian employee called to active duty under "any other provision of law . . . during a national emergency" is entitled to differential pay if the reservist's service coincides temporally with a declared national emergency. The Court determined that no substantive connection between the service and the national emergency is required. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger Picture The [DS] is still pushing the green new scam, they want to dim the sun in the UK. Everything they told us was a lie. Big fail. Trump is confirming the economic plan. The Federal Reserve days are numbered. Trump is reversing what the [CB] did in 1913, soon the Fed and IRS will cease to exist. The [DS] is doing what the patriots want, they are exposing the entire criminal syndicate and the Judges. The people are realizing that the entire system is corrupt and we cannot bring them to justice right now. Trump is setting the stage and preparing the Judges and courts for the Treasonous trials.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1914995234892546508 https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1915031726176317774   https://twitter.com/JohnStossel/status/1914782763301134428 John Stossel@JohnStossel My new climate video airs on Earth Day. As the media pushes panic, recall their record: 1988-experts say seas will cover the Maldives by 2018 2004-the Guardian says a secret report has European cities underwater by 2020 Didn't happen! Here's what alarmists get wrong today: https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1915165567314427915   https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1915164556336287861 Trump Wants Tariff Cases Moved to Federal Trade Court  President Donald Trump is calling to transfer legal cases filed against his tariffs to the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT), a strategy that eventually worked out for him during his first administration. The CIT, whose judges handle technical disputes against tariffs, ruled against Trump in lawsuits against his steel tariffs in 2018, but then he was able to appeal the case and win, reports Bloomberg News on Wednesday. Cases have been filed in California, Montana, and Florida against the president's current tariffs. Legal experts say that steering the lawsuits through the CIT could also work out for Trump, because even if the trade court rules against him, the appeals case would go through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has in the past deferred to presidents' authority on levying tariffs. Last week, Department of Justice attorneys argued to move the case in California, filed in a San Francisco federal court and brought by Gov. Gavin Newsom, to the CIT, located in New York. Source: newsmax.com https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1915033666746515623   of common sense and stop working with radical leftist groups that engage in lawfare designed to bankrupt the energy industry?   As of April 24, 2025, 21 states have average gas prices under $3 per gallon for regular gasoline, based on recent data. These states include: Mississippi ($2.68) Texas ($2.73) Oklahoma ($2.75) Louisiana ($2.76) Tennessee ($2.78) Kentucky ($2.79) Alabama ($2.80) Arkansas ($2.81) South Carolina ($2.82) Missouri ($2.83) Kansas ($2.84) Georgia ($2.85) Wisconsin ($2.86) Iowa ($2.87) North Carolina ($2.88) Florida ($2.89) New Mexico ($2.90) Ohio ($2.91) Colorado ($2.92) Massachusetts ($2.93) Rhode Island ($2.94) This information aligns with reports from AAA and other sources indicating that gas prices have been declining in many states, with 21 states currently averaging below $3 per gallon.  https://twitter.com/BehizyTweets/status/1915167742417654237 people.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

Prosecution laches is an infrequently used equitable doctrine that bars enforcement of a patent when the patentee has unreasonably delayed prosecution in a way that prejudices others. It is most commonly used by accused infringers as a defense in patent litigation, although the USPTO can also use it as a basis for refusing allowance. Regardless, it is most often used against the backdrop of multiple continuation applications.Continuation applications are applications which all follow from (i.e., claim priority to) a single earlier application. Creating “families” of patent applications in this way is a very common practice and allows the patent owner to claim different embodiments of the original invention in response to changes in marketplace and/or technological evolution. In Sonos Inc. v. Google LLC, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit, the district court, following a jury verdict in favor of the patentee, found Sonos’ patents unenforceable due to prosecution laches, despite Sonos diligently prosecuting continuation applications for 13 years, serially filing a continuation with each allowance. If upheld, the ruling will represent a notable change to patent practice with far-reaching effects for U.S. innovators of all stripes including, independent innovators, corporate innovators, and universities.This FedSoc forum will use the Sonos v. Google and other laches cases as needed to explore the conflict between prosecution laches and current continuation practice and much more.Featuring:Joseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCPaul Michel, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitGene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.Moderator: Jeffrey Depp, Policy Consultant, Center for Strategic and International Studies--To register, click the link above.

Send us a textDavid Mandel and Ruth Reymundo Mandel share highlights from the 2025 Safe & Together Asia Pacific Coercive Control and Children's Conference in Melbourne, Australia. Listen in as they reflect on key moments and the impact of bringing together over 400 practitioners from across the region. Here are some of the highlights: • Commitment to equity through a hybrid format that allowed participation from remote locations despite the technical and financial challenges• First-ever family law track showcasing four years of work with the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia• Launch of e-learning resources for independent Children's Lawyers that will reach over 1,200 practitioners• Focus on decolonizing practice and centering indigenous perspectives through keynote speakers like Aboriginal lawyer Amanda Morgan• Workshop on ethically including survivor expertise in organizations without exploitation or tokenism Now available! Mapping the Perpetrator's Pattern: A Practitioner's Tool for Improving Assessment, Intervention, and Outcomes The web-based Perpetrator Pattern Mapping Tool is a virtual practice tool for improving assessment, intervention, and outcomes through a perpetrator pattern-based approach. The tool allows practitioners to apply the Model's critical concepts and principles to their current case load in realCheck out David Mandel's new book "Stop Blaming Mothers and Ignoring Fathers: How to transform the way we keep children safe from domestic violence." Visit the Safe & Together Institute websiteStart taking Safe & Together Institute courses Check out Safe & Together Institute upcoming events

Intellectual Property: May the USPTO refuse a trademark because it contains the word Fuck? - Argued: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 11:4:54 EDT

On this episode of Ropes & Gray's ITC-focused podcast series, Talkin' Trade, IP litigators Matt Rizzolo, Matt Shapiro, and Patrick Lavery discuss a groundbreaking Federal Circuit decision in Lashify v. ITC. This pivotal ruling challenges the ITC's longstanding approach to the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, particularly the treatment of U.S.-based sales, marketing, and distribution activities. Tune in as they explore the implications of this decision for future Section 337 investigations, the potential expansion of complainants eligible to file at the ITC, and the broader impact on patent litigation. 

Today's headlines include: The unemployment rate has risen to 4.1% in January, according to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Authorities have begun euthanising a pod of false killer whales, following a mass stranding event on Tasmania’s west coast. Hamas is expected to hand over the bodies of four Israeli hostages as the first phase of the ceasefire agreement reaches its final stages. And today’s good news: More therapy dogs are coming to Australian courtrooms after the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia announced it's expanding its Court Dog Program. Hosts: Emma Gillespie and Billi FitzSimons Producer: Emma Gillespie Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful. The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent. Want more from TDA?Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletterSubscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel Have feedback for us?We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You cannot get a patent if your invention is obvious. This can be tricky to determine for biotech and pharmaceutical patents. There are competing standards for how this is determined. One is the "reasonable expectation of success" standard, which is a lower threshold than the "predictable results" standard. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that would have settled this, so we're left with the Federal Circuit's ruling in the case of Vanda Pharmaceuticals vs. Teva Pharmaceuticals. Listen to this episode to learn how these tests can give different results for patentability and what it means for the future biotech and drug patents!

Stanley Ference, Stanley has an extensive background in intellectual property law, including Online Counterfeiting. He advises clients on all aspects of patent, trademark, and copyright law. Stanley's practice includes litigation for both plaintiff and defendant, patent prosecution for computer-related technology, trademark prosecution and oppositions. Stanley has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has served as an expert witness. He is an E-Discovery Special Master for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Ference was selected to the 2022 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. In 2020 Stanley was recognized by Best Lawyers in America, Chambers & Partners, IP Stars and Super Lawyers. He has also been recognized as a Lawyer of the Year by U.S. News and the firm has been recognized as a Best Law Firm.Highlight Bullets> Here's a glimpse of what you would learn…. Importance of protecting intellectual property (IP) for e-commerce businesses.Challenges posed by online counterfeiting and its impact on brand owners.Legal options available for e-commerce sellers facing IP infringement.Differences between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.Emotional and financial toll of counterfeiting on entrepreneurs.Strategies for enforcing IP rights and taking legal action against infringers.The role of online marketplaces in IP protection and their limitations.Mindset shifts for entrepreneurs regarding counterfeiting as a sign of success.Continuous monitoring and enforcement of IP rights as a necessity.Actionable steps for e-commerce sellers to secure and enforce their intellectual property.In this episode of the Ecomm Breakthrough Podcast, host Josh Hadley discusses the critical issue of online counterfeiting with Stanley Ference, a leading patent attorney from Pittsburgh. Josh shares his personal struggles with intellectual property (IP) protection, emphasizing its importance for business growth. Stanley offers expert advice on navigating IP challenges, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. He highlights the necessity of proactive legal action and continuous enforcement to protect e-commerce brands. The episode provides actionable insights for seven-figure business owners aiming to scale, stressing the value of professional legal guidance in safeguarding their intellectual property.Here are the 3 action items that Josh identified from this episode:1. Prioritize IP Registration and Enforcement: Secure patents, trademarks, and copyrights for your products, and be proactive in monitoring for infringement. Regularly enforcing these rights is essential to protecting your brand from counterfeiters and should be a core business practice.2. Consider Legal Action When Facing Infringement: When encountering counterfeits, consult with a legal expert to assess your options, even if you don't have formal IP protections in place. Legal professionals can help you navigate complex cases, and actions like asset freezing orders can have a significant impact on reducing counterfeit activity.3. Be Prepared for Ongoing IP Protection: Recognize that IP enforcement is an ongoing effort. Regular monitoring of marketplaces and prompt action against infringers will help maintain your brand's integrity and reduce the risk of long-term damage. Stay organized and informed to streamline your IP protection strategy effectively.Resources mentioned in this episode:Josh Hadley on LinkedIneComm Breakthrough ConsultingeComm Breakthrough PodcastEmail Josh Hadley: Josh@eCommBreakthrough.comAmazon Brand RegistryApex Program for PatentsMy Life in Court by Louis NizerFerence LawBill Gates on LinkedInSteve Jobs on LinkedInSteve Wozniak on LinedInSpecial Mention(s):Adam “Heist” Runquist on LinkedInKevin King on LinkedInMichael E. Gerber on LinkedInRelated Episode(s):“Cracking the Amazon Code: Learn From Adam Heist's Brand Scaling Secrets” on the eComm Breakthrough Podcast“Kevin King's Wicked-Smart Tips for Building an Audience of Raving Fans” on the eComm Breakthrough Podcast“Unlocking Entrepreneurial Greatness | Insider Secrets With E-myth Author Michael Gerber” on the eComm Breakthrough PodcastEpisode SponsorThis episode is brought to you by eComm Breakthrough Consulting where I help seven-figure e-commerce owners grow to eight figures. I started Hadley Designs in 2015 and grew it to an eight-figure brand in seven years.I made mistakes along the way that made the path to eight figures longer. At times I doubted whether our business could even survive and become a real brand. I wish I would have had a guide to help me grow faster and avoid the stumbling blocks.If you've hit a plateau and want to know the next steps to take your business to the next level, then go to www.EcommBreakthrough.com (that's Ecomm with two M's) to learn more.Transcript AreaJosh 00:00:00  Welcome to the Ecomm Breakthrough podcast. I'm your host, Josh Hadley, where I interview the top business leaders in e-commerce. Past guests include Kevin King, Michael Gerber, author of The E-myth, and Stephen Pope of My Amazon Guide. Today, I am speaking with Stanley Ferentz, one of Pittsburgh's leading paten...

The Federal Circuit’s first Chief Judge, the Honorable Howard T. Markey, announced, “In our Court there will be an opinion explaining enough to tell you what the law is in every case.” He added, “We do not just render a one-worded decision and go away.” In recent years, however, the Federal Circuit has routinely issued one-word “judgment[s] of affirmance without opinion” under Federal Circuit Rule 36(a), saying only “AFFIRMED” rather than issuing an opinion. Is this practice lawful? Do the benefits of Rule 36’s benefits outweigh its costs? Join this FedSoc Forum for a lively debate on these questions. Featuring: Joseph Cianfrani, Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Amit R. Vora, Special Counsel, Kasowitz Benson Torres Moderator: Robert J. Rando, Partner, Greenspoon Marder LLP -- To register, click the link above.

This week on Off the Shelf, Jason Workmaster, member and Government Contracts Practice lead at Miller & Chevalier, provides a wide-ranging update on key policy developments and legal trends in government contracts.  Workmaster discusses the impact of the administration's EEO/DEI Executive Order (EO) and what government contractors need to know, including how compliance programs will need to adjust.  He notes that the EO guidance includes a new certification requirement that will raise potential Civil False Claims Act liability for government contractors.  Workmaster also talks about the new proposed organizational conflict of interest FAR rule, and he looks into his crystal ball and highlights the possibility that the new Congress may repeal some final rules issued by the Biden Administration pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.  It will be a question of timing and Congressional workload as to whether some final rules are repealed.  Finally, Jason briefs the Federal Circuit's ACLR  decision regarding the adequacy of commercial record-keeping practices in the context of a claim.      Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on Off the Shelf, Jason Workmaster, member and Government Contracts Practice lead at Miller & Chevalier, provides a wide-ranging update on key policy developments and legal trends in government contracts. Workmaster discusses the impact of the administration's EEO/DEI Executive Order (EO) and what government contractors need to know, including how compliance programs will need to adjust.  He notes that the EO guidance includes a new certification requirement that will raise potential Civil False Claims Act liability for government contractors. Workmaster also talks about the new proposed organizational conflict of interest FAR rule, and he looks into his crystal ball and highlights the possibility that the new Congress may repeal some final rules issued by the Biden Administration pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.  It will be a question of timing and Congressional workload as to whether some final rulesare repealed.  Finally, Jason briefs the Federal Circuit's ACLR  decision regarding the adequacy of commercial record-keeping practices in the context of a claim.      Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This Day in Legal History: Gary Gilmore ExecutedOn January 17, 1977, Gary Gilmore was executed by firing squad in Utah, becoming the first person to be put to death in the United States after a 10-year pause in capital punishment. This execution followed the Supreme Court's landmark 1976 decision in Gregg v. Georgia, which reinstated the death penalty under revised statutes that addressed prior concerns about arbitrariness and fairness. Gilmore had been convicted of two murders committed during robberies in Utah and notably refused to appeal his death sentence, demanding instead that it be carried out promptly.His case drew significant public and media attention, particularly as it coincided with the reopening of the death penalty debate in the U.S. After the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Furman v. Georgia temporarily invalidated capital punishment, states had revised their laws to provide more structured sentencing guidelines. Gilmore's execution marked the first test of those reforms.The event reignited intense national debates over the morality, fairness, and efficacy of capital punishment. Proponents argued that it served as a deterrent and a just response to heinous crimes, while critics questioned its alignment with human rights principles and pointed to racial and socioeconomic disparities in its application. The firing squad method itself sparked further controversy over humane execution practices.Gilmore's case also influenced popular culture, inspiring Norman Mailer's Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Executioner's Song. His willingness to accept the penalty became a focal point in discussions about agency and justice within the death penalty system. The debates sparked by his execution continue to shape U.S. legal discourse, reflecting unresolved tensions over capital punishment in the American legal system.Pam Bondi, Trump's pick for attorney general, disclosed a net worth of $12.2 million, including nearly $3 million in Trump Media shares received after the public debut of Truth Social's parent company last year. Her financial disclosures, submitted during the Senate confirmation process, revealed significant earnings linked to Trump-related entities since leaving public service in 2019. Bondi earned $1.1 million as a lobbyist with Ballard Partners, a firm led by Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard, and $520,000 from the Trump-affiliated America First Policy Institute.She also reported earning $203,738 in 2024 as a lawyer with Panza, Maurer & Maynard, where her clients included Pfizer. Bondi's stake in Trump Media Technology Group includes $3 million in stock and warrants valued at $3.9 million as of December 2024, acquired as compensation for consulting services. Her financial disclosures showed $1.7 million in liabilities, largely from real estate mortgages and notes payable to relatives. Democrats expressed concerns about her close ties to Trump during her Senate hearing, questioning her independence if confirmed as attorney general.Trump AG Pick Bondi Discloses $3 Million in Truth Social StockDemocratic attorneys general are preparing to defend key Biden administration policies as Donald Trump is set to begin his second term as president. With Trump's plans to reverse rules on immigration, the environment, and transgender rights, AGs from over a dozen states, including California, New Jersey, and Michigan, have moved to intervene in legal cases. One major effort involves defending a Biden rule providing health insurance to immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, which is currently challenged by Republican AGs.These Democratic coalitions are also seeking to uphold Biden-era regulations on environmental protections, gun dealers, and firearm devices that allow rapid firing. New Jersey AG Matt Platkin emphasized their focus on protecting residents' rights and ensuring Trump's administration adheres to the rule of law. This strategy mirrors actions during Trump's first term when Democratic AGs filed 155 lawsuits against his policies, achieving an 83% success rate. However, the current legal landscape presents new challenges, with a more conservative judiciary shaped by Trump's earlier appointments. Democratic AG offices, however, are now more experienced, having honed their strategies in prior legal battles. Political experts anticipate numerous lawsuits targeting executive actions Trump may issue early in his term.Democratic states brace for Trump by launching defense of Biden policies | ReutersIn the latest development of the ongoing saga surrounding 97-year-old Judge Pauline Newman, the Federal Circuit's Judicial Council has dismissed her appeal against suspension as "meritless." In a brief filed with the DC Circuit, the Council, alongside the Department of Justice, argued that Newman's claim—that her suspension amounts to unconstitutional removal without impeachment—should be rejected under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act.Judge Newman, the oldest active federal judge, was suspended after refusing to cooperate with an investigation into her mental fitness. Her second one-year suspension from hearing new cases remains in effect, though the government maintains it is not permanent and could be lifted if she agrees to participate in the inquiry. Newman has challenged the suspension through administrative proceedings and an appeal in the DC Circuit, where her court, known for its jurisdiction over patent cases, is also located.The brief, representing Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore and the Judicial Council, asserts that Congress distinguishes temporary suspensions from removal. Newman's legal team, the New Civil Liberties Alliance, continues to argue her case.97-Year-Old Judge's Suspension Appeal 'Meritless,' Council SaysThe Biden administration will leave enforcement of the TikTok ban to the incoming Trump administration, signaling no immediate action to force the app offline when a new law targeting the platform takes effect. While TikTok itself could shut down to highlight the law's impact on its 170 million U.S. users, the Biden administration stated it will not enforce the ban, instead emphasizing that TikTok should operate under American ownership. The law imposes penalties on tech companies like Apple and Google if they continue providing services to TikTok while it remains under ByteDance's ownership, exposing them to significant financial risk. However, any delay in enforcement would require the president to grant an extension under strict conditions, none of which TikTok has met. Efforts in Congress to extend the deadline have stalled, with security concerns raised by lawmakers like Senator Tom Cotton blocking attempts to provide ByteDance with more time to divest.President-elect Trump has signaled openness to negotiating a resolution to keep TikTok operational, citing its value to his campaign and young voters. Discussions within his team include a potential executive order to delay the ban while exploring ways to safeguard user data. The Supreme Court has yet to issue a ruling on the law, though justices have expressed concerns about national security risks tied to TikTok's Chinese ownership. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer, are urging further action to balance security, privacy, and the platform's continued availability.Biden administration will leave it to Trump to implement TikTok ban - ABC NewsThis week's closing theme is by Giuseppe Verdi (1813-1901). Verdi is one of the most celebrated composers in the history of opera, renowned for his ability to blend dramatic storytelling with deeply emotive music. A central figure in 19th-century Italian opera, Verdi's works, including La Traviata, Rigoletto, and Aida, remain staples of the repertoire worldwide. His music often reflected his passion for Italian nationalism and human emotion, making his operas timeless in their appeal. Among his earliest triumphs was Nabucco (1842), a work that established him as a leading composer and marked the start of his long and illustrious career.Nabucco, Verdi's third opera, tells the story of the plight of the Israelites under the rule of the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar (Nabucco). Its overture, a brilliant instrumental prelude, captures the opera's dramatic intensity and stirring themes. The piece begins with ominous, foreboding chords that hint at the struggles to come, followed by a sweeping and heroic melody that reflects the resilience and hope central to the story. The overture's dynamic shifts and richly textured orchestration showcase Verdi's ability to infuse orchestral music with the same dramatic power found in his vocal writing.Notably, Nabucco became a symbol of Italian unification during the Risorgimento, with its famous chorus "Va, pensiero" resonating as an anthem of liberation. While the overture does not include this iconic melody, it captures the essence of the opera's emotional and political undertones. As this week's closing theme, the Nabucco overture offers a perfect blend of drama, passion, and triumph, embodying Verdi's mastery and the timeless power of his music.Without further ado, Giuseppe Verdi's overture from Nabucco. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

2025 promises to be another busy year for intellectual property law. In this episode of IP Talk with Wolf Greenfield, you'll hear Wolf Greenfield attorneys from a variety of practice areas reviewing some of the top issues of 2024 and offering their insights on what to expect in the months ahead. Here are some of the highlights:01:02 - Chelsea Loughran's thoughts on The University of California v. Broad Institute, a federal court case involving competing patent applications for the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system02:25 - Zach Piccolomini is watching the Unified Patent Court (UPC) for upcoming decisions in the standard essential patent space and “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” royalties03:34 - Jonathan Roses with insight on recent Orange Book developments and what to expect with the new administration  05:31 - Jen Wang offers advice for dealing with rejections in the wake of the Federal Circuit overturning a 40-year-old obviousness test for design patents in the LKQ v. GM case06:34 - Scott McKeown on noteworthy 2024 developments at the USPTO and some thoughts for what might happen in 2025 08:43 - John Strand on the Dewberry case, which was just argued before the Supreme Court (a decision is expected in the spring)10:23 - Gabe McCool discusses the BIO Secure Act  

This Day in Legal History: Law of BurgosOn December 27, 1512, the Spanish Crown enacted the Laws of Burgos, marking one of the earliest attempts in European colonial history to regulate interactions between colonizers and indigenous peoples. These laws were implemented primarily in the Caribbean and aimed to address the mistreatment of indigenous populations following the Spanish conquests. They formalized the encomienda system, under which Spanish settlers were granted the right to indigenous labor in exchange for providing religious instruction and protection. The laws also sought to prevent outright abuse by prohibiting physical mistreatment and ensuring that indigenous people received basic sustenance and housing.The Laws of Burgos represented an acknowledgment of the moral and ethical issues raised by colonial expansion, partly influenced by the advocacy of figures like Dominican friar Antonio de Montesinos. However, their practical effectiveness was minimal. Enforcement mechanisms were weak, and colonial administrators often disregarded the rules. The encomienda system itself perpetuated exploitation, as it enabled settlers to maintain control over indigenous labor with little oversight.The laws mandated the conversion of indigenous peoples to Christianity, critics argue that this often served to further entrench colonial domination rather than protect cultural or spiritual rights. Over time, the failure of the Laws of Burgos to alleviate suffering led to further reforms, including the New Laws of 1542, which aimed to abolish the encomienda system altogether. The Laws of Burgos remain a significant moment in legal history for their attempt—however flawed—to impose moral constraints on imperial expansion.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated a nationwide injunction against enforcing the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), reversing a decision by a different panel of the same court just days earlier. The CTA, intended to combat money laundering, requires U.S. businesses formed before 2024 to disclose their beneficial owners by January 1, 2025. The law was challenged by Texas Top Cop Shop Inc., a firearms retailer, with representation from the Center for Individual Rights. A district court issued an injunction halting enforcement of the CTA on December 3.However, on December 23, the court's motions panel lifted the injunction, citing the government's strong likelihood of proving the CTA constitutional. This decision was overturned by a separate panel handling the case's merits, which reinstated the injunction to maintain the constitutional status quo until the appeal is fully resolved. The case, titled Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland, underscores ongoing legal disputes over the balance between regulatory compliance and constitutional protections.If ever allowed to come into law, the CTA would mandate most U.S. entities, including corporations, LLCs, and similar structures, to report their beneficial owners—individuals who exercise substantial control or own at least 25% of the entity—to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Exemptions apply to certain entities, such as large, publicly traded companies and those already subject to substantial federal oversight. The CTA's reporting requirements are designed to create a centralized registry of beneficial ownership information, accessible to law enforcement and regulatory agencies for investigative purposes. By implementing these measures, the CTA seeks to close gaps in corporate opacity and align U.S. practices with global anti-money laundering standards.Corporate Transparency Act Blocked by US Appeals Court AgainUS appeals court halts enforcement of anti-money laundering law | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, the oldest active federal judge in the U.S., has accused the Federal Circuit of withholding documents related to her suspension to control the media narrative. In a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Newman sought to unseal four documents she says highlight Chief Judge Kimberly Moore's and the Judicial Council's evolving demands for her medical records during their investigation into her fitness to serve. Newman argues that the documents, which include a gag order, do not contain sensitive information warranting secrecy and are critical to her due process claims. The Federal Circuit contends that sealing the documents is necessary to preserve fairness and protect broader procedural integrity, asserting that they will be released in due course. Newman, however, criticized the delays as unjustified, claiming they serve only to control public perception. She also alleged selective disclosures by the Judicial Council to favorably shape media coverage during the investigation. Represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, Newman continues to challenge her suspension, arguing that the D.C. Circuit has the authority to unseal the contested documents. The case underscores tensions over judicial transparency and due process rights.Newman Accuses Fed. Cir. of Concealing Files to Control MediaBioNTech has reached settlement agreements with the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) over COVID-19 vaccine royalty disputes. The German company, partnered with Pfizer for vaccine production, will pay $791.5 million to the NIH and $467 million to Penn. Penn will dismiss its lawsuit, which alleged that BioNTech underpaid royalties for using mRNA technology developed by Nobel laureates at the university. Pfizer will reimburse BioNTech for portions of the payments: up to $170 million for Penn and $364.5 million for the NIH. The settlements include amendments to BioNTech's licensing agreements with both entities, committing to ongoing royalty payments as a low single-digit percentage of vaccine net sales. Additionally, they establish a framework for licensing the use of NIH and Penn patents in combination products. BioNTech stated that these settlements do not constitute an admission of liability.BioNTech enters settlement with US agency, UPenn over COVID vaccine royalties | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one of the most celebrated composers of the Classical era, was a musical prodigy whose works remain timeless. Born in Salzburg in 1756, Mozart composed over 600 pieces, including symphonies, operas, chamber music, and sonatas, showcasing his unparalleled melodic genius and structural clarity. His works are renowned for their emotional depth and technical mastery, often blending elegance with playful innovation.Among his many compositions, the Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331, holds a special place for its lyrical beauty. The first movement, Andante grazioso, is a theme with six variations that exemplifies Mozart's ingenuity in transforming a simple, graceful melody into a vibrant exploration of texture and expression. The movement's flowing lines and delicate ornamentation reflect Mozart's flair for creating music that is both technically demanding and deeply emotive.This sonata, likely composed around 1783, radiates a sense of intimacy and charm, making it a favorite in the piano repertoire. The Andante grazioso invites the listener into a world of serene elegance, embodying the Classical ideal of balance and refinement while hinting at the playful brilliance that defines much of Mozart's work. This week's closing theme reminds us of the enduring power of music to evoke beauty and joy through simplicity and artistry.Without further ado, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Piano Sonata No. 11 in A major, K. 331, enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A seemingly ordinary award protest has blown up. For only the fifth time in the last 25 years, all of the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear the case. That's known as an en banque hearing. To explain how a subcontracting dispute got to this level, Haynes Boone procurement attorney Dan Ramish. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A seemingly ordinary award protest has blown up. For only the fifth time in the last 25 years, all of the judges of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear the case. That's known as an en banque hearing. To explain how a subcontracting dispute got to this level, Haynes Boone procurement attorney Dan Ramish. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

During the past few years, NAA has diligently worked to recover damages that housing providers suffered under the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) protracted eviction moratorium, which financially damaged rental housing owners and violated rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. On August 7, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided 2-1 that the case move can move forward against the federal government.On this episode of the NAA Apartmentcast, the official podcast of the National Apartment Association, we talk with John McDermott, retired NAA General Counsel, who offers an update on the legal action taken against the unconstitutional government overreach of the CDC's eviction moratorium and walks through the legal framework underpinning the case. Although NAA's efforts have proven successful with this recent appeals court decision, there is still an opportunity for property owners to join the lawsuit and recover business losses attributed to the unlawful CDC eviction moratorium. There is a five-year statute of limitations for possible plaintiffs to bring their claim and this lawsuit is open to all rental housing owners operating in a state or locality under the federal moratorium. Check eligibility at https://www.naahq.org/CDC-eviction-moratorium-lawsuit.  Visit https://www.naahq.org/ to learn more about the National Apartment Association.Please note that as is the case for all NAA Apartmentcast episodes, nothing contained within this podcast should be treated as legal advice. The information presented is for educational purposes only.

Intellectual Property: Is software that keeps track of billable hours patentable? - Argued: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 8:1:0 EDT

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Vidal v Elster.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? The case was decided on June 13, 2024. Steve Elster sought to register the trademark "Trump too small" for use on shirts and hats, drawing from a 2016 Presidential primary debate exchange. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration based on the "names clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of a mark that identifies a particular living individual without their written consent. Elster argued that this clause violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the PTO's decision, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Federal Circuit's decision, holding that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court found that while the names clause is content-based, it is not viewpoint-based, as it does not discriminate against any particular viewpoint. The Court also noted that the names clause is grounded in a historical tradition of restricting the trademarking of names, which has coexisted with the First Amendment. The Court concluded that this history and tradition are sufficient to demonstrate that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that its decision is narrow and does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

When it comes to patent eligibility and statutory construction, does “any” really mean “any?” In the courts, is it permissible to limit statutorily-authorized patent term adjustment based on a doctrine that has no basis in statute? The debate surrounding these issues has only gotten livelier with recent Federal Circuit decisions and a bi-partisan patent eligibility bill working its way through Congress. With this backdrop, please join us for an exciting discussion about whether patent law has run afoul of the basic precepts of textualism and statutory construction, and what, if anything, should be done about it.Featuring:Matthew Dowd, Founder and Partner, Dowd Scheffel PLLCSherry Knowles, Principal, Knowles Intellectual Property StrategiesGene Quinn, President & CEO, IPWatchdog, Inc.Prof. Josh Sarnoff, Professor of Law, DePaul University College of LawModerator: John Rogitz, Managing Attorney, Rogitz & Associates--To register, click the link above.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Harrow v Department of Defense.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U-S-C § 7703(b)(1)(A) jurisdictional and thus not subject to equitable tolling? The case was decided on May 16, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the 60-day filing deadline for a federal employee to petition the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board, 5 U-S-C § 7703(b)(1), is not jurisdictional. Justice Elena Kagan authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. As a preliminary matter, procedural requirements are typically not treated as jurisdictional unless Congress clearly states otherwise. This sets a high bar for finding a procedural rule to be jurisdictional. The language of § 7703(b)(1) itself does not suggest that the 60-day deadline is jurisdictional. Although the deadline is stated in mandatory terms (“shall be filed”), the Court has repeatedly held that this is not enough to make a time bar jurisdictional. The provision does not mention the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction or authority to hear untimely claims. Nor does 28 U-S-C § 1295(a)(9), which grants the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over appeals from the MSPB “pursuant to” §7703(b)(1), automatically make the 60-day deadline jurisdictional. However, the Court found that the phrase "pursuant to" has multiple meanings and does not necessarily indicate strict compliance with every requirement of §7703(b)(1). Finally, this case is distinguishable from Bowles v Russell, which held that the deadline for filing an appeal from one Article III court to another is jurisdictional, because this case involves an appeal from an agency to a court, not from one court to another. Because Congress did not clearly state that the 60-day deadline in §7703(b)(1) is jurisdictional, and the language and context of the relevant statutes do not compel a jurisdictional reading, the deadline is a non-jurisdictional procedural requirement. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The majority of the Supreme Court keeps diluting bribery laws and Eric Adams had best hope they aren't done yet. ----- Eric Adams got indicted last week and quickly pulled out the big litigation guns to explain that the Supreme Court already said bribery was cool. Meanwhile, Jonathan Turley rushed to the embattled mayor's defense to explain why ACTUALLY it was way worse that AOC once wore a borrowed dress to a party. Judge Pauline Newman's fight to end the pocket impeachment her colleagues on the Federal Circuit imposed upon her has added even more objective medical evidence that the other judges will continue to pretend they can't understand. And Shohei Ohtani's 50-50 home run ball reminds everyone that free stuff still has taxable value.

The majority of the Supreme Court keeps diluting bribery laws and Eric Adams had best hope they aren't done yet. ----- Eric Adams got indicted last week and quickly pulled out the big litigation guns to explain that the Supreme Court already said bribery was cool. Meanwhile, Jonathan Turley rushed to the embattled mayor's defense to explain why ACTUALLY it was way worse that AOC once wore a borrowed dress to a party. Judge Pauline Newman's fight to end the pocket impeachment her colleagues on the Federal Circuit imposed upon her has added even more objective medical evidence that the other judges will continue to pretend they can't understand. And Shohei Ohtani's 50-50 home run ball reminds everyone that free stuff still has taxable value.

SO MANY OF YOU ASKED FOR IT!! And we deliver! This week we have @ChristaLaser on, not only a Patent Attorney, but also a PROFESSOR for patent and IP law to talk all about Prior Art and what it means for patents, specifically the @BambuLab and @Stratasys lawsuits that are currently ongoing. Christa has an event for makers Oct. 9th at 11am ET: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/intellectual-property-law-for-makers-tickets-1018863376787? https://christalaser.com Some about Professor Laser: Professor Christa Laser began teaching at Cleveland State University College of Law after nearly a decade of practice experience as an intellectual property litigator at the Washington, D.C. offices of law firms WilmerHale and Kirkland & Ellis LLP. She has deep expertise in patents, trademarks, copyrights, false advertising, pharmaceutical litigation and regulation, and technology law. She has represented leading life sciences and technology companies in all stages of trial and appellate matters and consulted on legislative changes to intellectual property laws. Professor Laser's research focuses on intellectual property and innovation. Her patent law scholarship has been cited by numerous scholars, by judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and in briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court. Her research envisions an intellectual property system that supports innovation, investment, and competition across all technology areas. Professor Laser was the World Champion of the Lachs Space Law Moot Court Competition. Prior to law school, she worked as a scientific researcher, where her work studying protein dynamics of photosynthesis using genetically modified bacteria and laser spectroscopy was published in the prestigious journal Science. She was also a medalist at the National Championships and North American Cup in fencing. Main channel video on Stratasys vs. Bambu Lab: https://youtu.be/ZrNMiSZPsNA A HUGE Thank you to the Filament Sponsor of these streams, @printedsolid ! Check them out: https://printedsolid.com __________________________________ Do you have an idea you want to get off the ground? Reach out to the Making Awesome Podcast through https://3DMusketeers.com/podcast and someone will get you set up to be a guest!

Federal Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk discusses his memoir and provides priceless insights into how the Federal Circuit is operating today - 42 years after it was created in 1982 and 24 years after Dyk was confirmed to serve on it in 2000.This episode explores Dyk's perspectives on judges serving together at the Federal Circuit. His reflections and anecdotes offer a unique glimpse into the workings of the Federal Circuit, the decision-making process of a seasoned appellate judge, and various debates surrounding the Federal Circuit and judges retiring.Dyk was nominated to the Federal Circuit in 1998 by President Bill Clinton after clerking for Earl Warren at the Supreme Court and a distinguished career as an appellate attorney at the law firms of Wilmer Cutler and Jones Day. Selected Topics:* First introduction to patent law: office linoleum floors & yacht named Pat Pending* Role of chief judges setting court dynamics* Collegiality, dissents, and importance of individual personalities & relationships among judges* Judge Dyk's process for considering cases before oral arguments* Dyk's defense of Rule 36 decisions and insights into other Federal Circuit practices* Panel dependency & skepticism of empirical scholarship related to judicial decisions* Former clerks arguing cases before judges they clerked for* Providing additional jurisdiction to Federal Circuit* Cameras in federal courtrooms & privacy in intra-court deliberations* Judicial retirement decisions and importance of humility* Advice for effective oral and written advocacy before the Federal Circuit, including for amicus briefsNotable, Quotable:Biggest challenge"I think the biggest challenge for any Federal Circuit Judge in patent cases in particular is is dealing with the technology . . . getting the help that you need to understand the technology. It's really hard. And we need help from the bar, we need help from our clerks, and we need to be willing to spend a lot of time to wade through it."Role of collegiality"Collegiality makes for better decision making, first of all. And second of all, it makes it a nicer place to be. You get along with your colleagues. The job is a lot better."Qualities of best written briefs"A brief that is candid about what's going on, that recognizes that there's another side to it, that's nothing shrill, that's statesman like, that's objective. Those are the qualities that we value most."On Judge Pauline Newman“I always enjoyed sitting with Judge Newman. I enjoyed having Judge Newman as a colleague and occasionally we did panels together. I remember we went to NYU and presented ourselves as being close colleagues even though we disagreed a lot of the time. Judge Newman was a terrific colleague, and I enjoyed being her friend.”Disclaimer This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bringing new momentum to the Darby Development Company v. U.S. case. This pivotal ruling challenges the CDC's nationwide eviction moratorium as a potential violation of the Fifth Amendment's Taking Clause, demanding just compensation for property owners. Join Mark and Vec as they discuss this landmark decision with NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Greg Dolin. Tune in to explore the implications of this ruling and what lies ahead for the case.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Clause 8 favorites - former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and HTIA's David Jones - return for the first ever Clause 8 debate!They debate Section 101, find common ground, and discuss possible paths forward for improving the state of patent eligibility in America.Selected Topics* Impact of Federal Circuit's State Street decision: "golden age of business method patents”* Supreme Court's Section 101 decisions: Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice* Iancu's role & thoughts about Ariosa v. Sequenom* Why Jones was concerned after Alice and what changed his mind* Federal Circuit's handling of Section 101 after Alice* Agreement regarding the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Eligibility Guidance* 77% Rate of Section 101 Rejections in USPTO's AI Tech Group* Whether the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) is a step toward a successful compromise in Congress* Possible adoption of EPO's approach to patent eligibilityNotable, Quotable"Patents are not just any other area of law. Patents are legal instruments, of course, but they're also commercial instruments." - Iancu"What I think we disagree on is you don't think that the sky is falling when it comes to 101 . . . as is in the United States now, I do think the sky is falling." -Iancu"Let's make the law clearer. Clearer law is always better." -Jones*Disclaimer: This podcast is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended as a general overview. The podcast does not constitute legal advice nor solicitation to provide legal services. It is not meant to convey a legal position, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. The opinions expressed are solely my own and those of any guests and do not express the views or opinions of any organization with which I or the guests are affiliated.  In some jurisdictions, the contents of this podcasts may be considered Attorney Advertising. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.voiceofip.com

This week on Off the Shelf, Jason Workmaster, Member at Miller & Chevalier, provides an update on key legal developments in federal procurement.Leading off the discussion is a briefing on the Federal Circuit's Percipient.AI decision potentially lowering the jurisdictional bar for task order protests. Workmaster outlines the facts of the case, the legal analysis and the implications for bid protests generally and task orders protests more specifically.He also gives his thoughts on the recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the semiconductor supply chain. The ANPR is the first step toward regulatory implementation of Section 5948 of the 2023 NDAA (the so-called “889 ban on certain microchips”).Finally Workmaster talks about other developments in cyber, including NIST 800-171, Revision 3. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on Off the Shelf, Jason Workmaster, Member at Miller & Chevalier, provides an update on key legal developments in federal procurement. Leading off the discussion is a briefing on the Federal Circuit's Percipient.AI decision potentially lowering the jurisdictional bar for task order protests. Workmaster outlines the facts of the case, the legal analysis and the implications for bid protests generally and task orders protests more specifically. He also gives his thoughts on the recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) regarding the semiconductor supply chain. The ANPR is the first step toward regulatory implementation of Section 5948 of the 2023 NDAA (the so-called “889 ban on certain microchips”). Finally Workmaster talks about other developments in cyber, including NIST 800-171, Revision 3.

This Day in Legal History: Operation SataniqueOn July 10, 1985, French intelligence agents bombed the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbor, New Zealand. This covert operation, codenamed "Operation Satanique," aimed to prevent the vessel from protesting French nuclear tests in the South Pacific. The attack resulted in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the tragic death of Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira.The incident quickly escalated into an international scandal, straining diplomatic relations between France and New Zealand. In the aftermath, two French agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, were apprehended and sentenced to ten years in a New Zealand prison for manslaughter. However, under international pressure, a deal was struck that allowed the agents to serve their sentences on a French-controlled island in the Pacific.Litigation between France and New Zealand ensued, culminating in a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In this landmark case, New Zealand sought compensation for the attack and the breach of its sovereignty. The ICJ ruling required France to pay New Zealand $7 million in damages and issue a formal apology, marking a significant moment in international law and state accountability.This event highlighted the tensions surrounding nuclear testing and environmental activism during the Cold War era. It also underscored the importance of respecting international law and the sovereignty of nations. The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior remains a poignant reminder of the lengths to which states might go to protect their interests, often at great moral and legal cost. The case of New Zealand v. France before the International Court of Justice demonstrated the legal processes and repercussions when a nation's sovereignty is violated by another state. This case emphasized the role of the ICJ in resolving international disputes and upholding international law.Alec Baldwin's trial for the 2021 fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the "Rust" movie set has turned its focus on the Colt .45 "Peacemaker" revolver involved. Jury selection occurred in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with Baldwin and his wife in attendance. The trial, starting almost three years after the incident, sees prosecutors and defense lawyers questioning jurors about their knowledge of the case and Baldwin's influence as a public figure.The case is unprecedented in U.S. history, as actors rarely face criminal charges for on-set fatalities. Baldwin could face up to 18 months in prison if convicted. The "Rust" armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, was previously found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for mistakenly loading a live round into the gun, receiving an 18-month sentence.A crucial point in the trial is whether Baldwin should have inspected the gun after being told it was "cold," meaning it should have been empty or contained dummy rounds. Baldwin has stated he did not pull the trigger, but an FBI examination found the gun would not fire without the trigger being pulled. Baldwin's defense argues that the gun was modified, potentially allowing it to fire without a trigger pull, but the FBI destroyed the gun during testing, complicating the defense's ability to prove this claim. Legal experts suggest that the condition of the firearm and its modifications will be central to the trial's outcome.Alec Baldwin manslaughter trial revolves around Wild West gun | ReutersJudge Pauline Newman, a 97-year-old member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, lost her lawsuit seeking reinstatement after being suspended for alleged cognitive and physical impairments due to age. Newman challenged her suspension, arguing that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, which governs the removal of judges, was unconstitutional. However, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper dismissed her claims, asserting that the law does not violate due process rights. Newman's attorney announced plans to appeal the decision.The Federal Circuit suspended Newman in September for at least a year or until she complies with court-ordered medical examinations. Chief Judge Kimberly Moore highlighted Newman's alleged cognitive decline and lack of cooperation with mental health inquiries. Newman, a notable figure in patent law, has defended her fitness for duty, citing favorable medical reports and maintaining public appearances.This case marks a rare public debate over judicial fitness, coinciding with broader discussions about age and capability in public office. The Federal Circuit's judicial council has demanded further explanation from Newman regarding her suspension, signaling potential for the suspension's extension due to her continued non-cooperation.US judge, 97, loses lawsuit seeking reinstatement | Reuters97-Year-Old Judge Newman to Appeal Loss in Suspension Suit (3)A D.C. Circuit panel ruled that Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign and a pro-Clinton PAC, Correct the Record, must face claims of improperly disclosing millions in expenditures. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) dismissed a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, alleging violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The court found that the FEC's dismissal was "contrary to law" as it stretched exemptions for internet spending beyond legal limits.The court emphasized that campaign committees must disclose coordinated expenditures as contributions, with exemptions only for unpaid internet communications. The Campaign Legal Center accused the Clinton campaign of accepting undisclosed contributions from Correct the Record, including opposition research and media activities. The ruling requires the FEC to clarify the internet exemption's bounds and consider enforcement actions against the Clinton campaign and Correct the Record. If the FEC does not act within 30 days, the Campaign Legal Center can pursue a private lawsuit.The D.C. Circuit's decision upholds a lower court ruling that the FEC's dismissal was unlawful. It also highlighted how the FEC's interpretation of exemptions could allow circumvention of campaign finance laws. The case has been remanded to the district court and then back to the FEC for further action. Judges J. Michelle Childs and Harry T. Edwards joined in the opinion.Clinton Campaign Case to Prompt Review of Disclosure Exemption This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This special edition covers the Federal Circuit's June 2024 protest decision in Percipient.ai, Inc. v. United States, and is hosted by Yuan Zhou and Anuj Vohra. Crowell & Moring's "Fastest 5 Minutes" is a biweekly podcast that provides a brief summary of significant government contracts legal and regulatory developments that no government contracts lawyer or executive should be without.

Join Mim and Lis as we hear an interview with two social workers from the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. These passionate social workers discuss the crucial role of social work in family law cases. Their social work story explores how conducting child-centered assessments and gaining the child's perspective can shift parents' understanding of their child's experiences, and lead to resolutions focused on the child's needs. They highlight how social workers navigate complex issues of risk, development and emotion to advocate for children navigating parental separation and high-conflict disputes. Mim and Lis then unpack the story and the important work that these social workers do, drawing links between this work and wider social work practice.  p.s. Don't forget to check out the latest episode of our sister podcast Social Work Discoveries! p.s.s. We'd love for you to join the conversation on this, so make sure you reach out to us on the socials (see links below), or otherwise by email at socialworkstoriespodcast@gmail.com - we'd love to hear from you! p.s.s.s. Follow our Facebook Page at: https://www.facebook.com/SocialWorkStoriesPodcast   Credits: Hosts - Lis Murphy and Dr. Mim Fox Producers - Dr. Ben Joseph and Justin Stech Social Media Coordinator - Maddison Stratten Music - 'Mama' by Ben Grace (copyright 2018). Find on Spotify, or at www.bengracemusic.com Social Work Stories©️ (19 June, 2024) Contact us online at www.socialworkstories.com, follow our facebook page and LinkedIn, or use the handle @SOWKStoriesPod on twitter or instagram.

In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided two cases in which it held that certain restrictions against registering certain kinds of marks violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing terms disparaging toward a person or institution. In Icanu v. Brunetti (2019), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing scandalous or immoral terms. The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: “Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.” At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.” The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application. This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech. Featuring: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC

At the age of 96, Judge Pauline Newman is the nation's oldest federal judge. In 1984, Judge Newman became the first judge appointed directly to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In April of last year, reports surfaced that Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore had initiated a complaint against Judge Newman […]

The continuing saga of the Series 9 & Ultra 2 Apple Watches continues as these watches with blood oxygen features are banned again as of January 18th. What were the smart home trends at CES 2024 this year? How big is the scale of surveillance for each Facebook user on Meta's social platform? And a surprise guest returns to today's Tech News Weekly to discuss what was announced at Samsung's Galaxy Unpacked 2024 event.  The sales ban of the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 in the US has resumed again as of January 18th as the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied Apple's request to pause the ban over the watches' blood oxygen features. Jennifer Pattison Tuohy returns to the show to talk about the trends of smart homes at this year's CES 2024 event. A study covered in The Markup that Consumer Reports conducted showcases the amount of data collected by companies and sent to Meta's social media platform, Facebook. And finally, Jason Howell returns to Tech News Weekly! He chats with Mikah about what was unveiled and discussed at Samsung's Galaxy Unpacked 2024. Host: Mikah Sargent Guests: Jennifer Pattison Tuohy and Jason Howell Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/tech-news-weekly. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: meraki.cisco.com/twit cachefly.com/twit

The Series 9 & Ultra 2 watches are available for purchase again from the Apple Store for the time being after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit placed a short pause on the ban's enforcement. In the meantime, Apple is pursuing a software fix to avoid another import ban on its watches. A new iPad did not get shipped in 2023. And could the Vision Pro be released in late January / early February? Apple wins temporary reprieve from the ban on Apple Watch sales. Apple still pursuing software fix to avoid Apple Watch import ban. The entrepreneur who bet his company on a fight with Apple. My Touch ID button is fully deconstructed. 4-year campaign backdoored iPhones using possibly the most advanced exploit ever. Apple warnings of possible government hacking drew ire of Indian officials. Apple just broke a tradition it held for 12 years. Vision Pro release date: Everything we know. Picks of the Week: Alex's Pick: Ugreen Tire Inflator Andy's Pick: Cabel Sasser's Archive of Vintage DAK Catalogues Jason's Pick: Squaring the Circle - The Story of Hipgnosis Hosts: Leo Laporte, Alex Lindsay, Andy Ihnatko, and Jason Snell Download or subscribe to this show at https://twit.tv/shows/macbreak-weekly. Get episodes ad-free with Club TWiT at https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: Wildgrain.com/MACBREAK or use code MACBREAK babbel.com/macbreak