Podcast appearances and mentions of Fred C Stevenson

The first lawsuit against the Chinese government seeking damages for personal and property injuries was filed in the Southern District of Florida by the Berman Law group. The lawsuit was later amended to add the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a defendant. Other lawsuits have followed elsewhere in the country. The panelists will discuss whether the CCP enjoys sovereign immunity and whether the acts and omissions of the Chinese government fall within one or more exceptions to sovereign immunity as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Featuring: -- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

The first lawsuit against the Chinese government seeking damages for personal and property injuries was filed in the Southern District of Florida by the Berman Law group. The lawsuit was later amended to add the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as a defendant. Other lawsuits have followed elsewhere in the country. The panelists will discuss whether the CCP enjoys sovereign immunity and whether the acts and omissions of the Chinese government fall within one or more exceptions to sovereign immunity as provided in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Featuring: -- Karen Lugo, Founder, Libertas-West Project-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor, George Washington University Law School-- Matthew T. Moore, Attorney, Berman Law Group-- Tatiana Sainati, Associate, Wiley Rein LLP

In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This episode will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This episode will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This Litigation Update teleforum will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School-- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

In January 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an antitrust complaint against Qualcomm in the Northern District of California. The FTC alleged that Qualcomm had unlawfully monopolized the market for certain semiconductors important in smartphone technology. Among other things, the FTC claimed that Qualcomm had maintained its market position by requiring chip customers to license their chips separately (known as the “no license, no chips” policy) and had refused to license its standard-essential patents (SEPs) to competitors. Judge Lucy Koh held a bench trial in January 2019 and issued a decision in favor of the FTC in May 2019. In a lengthy opinion, the court determined that Qualcomm’s “no license, no chips” policy violated antitrust law and that Qualcomm had a separate antitrust duty to deal with its competitors. Judge Koh then issued an injunction that, among other things, prohibited Qualcomm from conditioning the supply of chips on a customer’s patent-license status and required Qualcomm to negotiate and make available licenses on FRAND terms. Qualcomm appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit issued an order partially staying Judge Koh’s injunction. According to the Ninth Circuit, “Qualcomm has shown, at a minimum, the presence of serious questions on the merits” of the district court’s opinion. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit needs to decide whether the district court’s “order and injunction represent a trailblazing application of the antitrust laws, or instead an improper excursion beyond the outer limits of the Sherman Act.”While these issues alone would be interesting, this case is even more intriguing because the Department of Justice (DOJ) has intervened in the case – in favor of Qualcomm. The DOJ filed an amicus brief in favor of the stay of injunction, as well as an amicus brief on the merits. The Ninth Circuit has also granted DOJ’s request for five minutes of oral argument time. Oral argument in the Ninth Circuit is set for February 13, 2020.This Litigation Update teleforum will recap the district court’s decision, discuss the arguments likely to be made on appeal, and explore the bigger issues this case brings up for antitrust policy.Featuring:-- Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law and Director, Planning and Publications, Center for Law, Economics, & Finance, George Washington University Law School-- Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

The George Washington University Law School (GW) Federalist Society Chapter presents a conversation with United States Senator Rand Paul moderated by GW Professor Orin Kerr. Senator Paul will discuss Congressional authority under Article I and will field questions from the audience. -- Speakers: Professor Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School and Hon. Rand Paul, United States Senator, Kentucky.

The George Washington University Law School (GW) Federalist Society Chapter presents a conversation with United States Senator Rand Paul moderated by GW Professor Orin Kerr. Senator Paul will discuss Congressional authority under Article I and will field questions from the audience. -- Speakers: Professor Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School and Hon. Rand Paul, United States Senator, Kentucky.

Dec. 9, 2014. As a part of a symposium on the enduring legacy of Magna Carta, an expert panel discussed rule of law as it relates to contemporary issues surrounding civil liberties and surveillance. Speaker Biography: Orin Kerr is Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School. Speaker Biography: Frank James "Jim" Sensenbrenner Jr. has served in the U.S. House of Representatives representing Wisconsin since 1979. He is a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations. Speaker Biography: Jerrold L. Nadler has served in the U.S. House of Representatives representing New York since 1992 and is a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=6596