Podcast appearances and mentions of gregory dolin

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

On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided United States v. Arthrex, Inc. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Chief Justice Roberts explained that the patent judge's unreviewable authority is incompatible with his appointment as an inferior officer.Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Parts I and II of the opinion, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined Part III of the opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to Parts I and II.A panel of experts joins us to offer their differing views on the ruling and disucss the implications for patent law, intellectual property, and more. Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law SchoolModerator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law---This Zoom event is open to public registration.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Arthrex Inc. on March 1, 2021. This case is an important one for the office of patent judges; at issue is whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are "principal officers," which require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, or "inferior officers," which do not. Also at issue is whether, if they are principal officers, the lower court properly cured any Appointments Clause defects in the current statutory scheme.Gregory Dolin and Dmitry Karshtedt joined us to review oral arguments, discuss the case, and offer their divergent views on the merits in a discussion moderated by Kristen Osenga.Featuring:- Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law- Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington Law School- [Moderator] Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of LawVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in United States v. Arthrex Inc. on March 1, 2021. This case is an important one for the office of patent judges. At issue in the case is whether, for purposes of the appointments clause, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are principal officers, requiring presidential appointment and Senate confirmation, or are "inferior officers." Also at issue is whether if they are principal officers, the lower court properly cured any appointments-clause defects in the current statutory scheme.Profs. Greg Dolin and Dmitry Karshtedt join us review oral arguments, discuss the case, and offer their divergent views on the merits in a discussion moderated by Prof. Kristen Osenga. Featuring:-- Prof. Gregory Dolin, Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law-- Prof. Dmitry Karshtedt, Associate Professor of Law, The George Washington Law School-- Moderator: Prof. Kristen Osenga, Austin E. Owen Research Scholar & Professor of Law, The University of Richmond School of Law

On December 1st, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service. The case involves whether courts have jurisdiction over challenges to the validity of Internal Revenue Service rules or regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act before the taxpayer pays a tax and seeks a refund. The specific issue presented was whether the prohibition in the Anti-Injunction Act (26 U.S.C., sec. 7421, “AIA”) on lawsuits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” bars challenges to regulatory mandates issued by Treasury/IRS in the form of information reporting requirements that could lead to the assessment of tax penalties. In CIC Services, the Government asserted that the AIA barred pre-enforcement litigation challenging reporting requirements that could have significant civil and criminal penalties attached for non-compliance, where the civil penalties are denominated by the Internal Revenue Code as a “tax” but where no violation had yet occurred. The case came to the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which had affirmed a district court opinion dismissing the case under the AIA for lack of jurisdiction.We are joined by a panel of experts to discuss the oral arguments, and the various policy implications of the potential rulings. Featuring: -- Prof. Robert Carney, Senior Counsel, Caplin & Drysdale, and Adjunct Professor, Tax Practice and Procedure (Administrative), Georgetown University Law Center-- Prof. Kristin Hickman, Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School-- Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law, and Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawMr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLCModerator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

In 2011, Congress created a new administrative tribunal in the U.S. Patent Office with the power to cancel previously granted patents, called the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). The PTAB has become a flashpoint of controversy. Some companies and organizations defend it as an important tool for eliminating invalidly issued patents. Critics have highlighted a wide range of concerns, including, among others, not providing patent-owners with basic due process protections and a structural bias against patents that has led to inordinately high “kill" rates. In Oil States v. Greene's Energy Group, the Supreme Court will decide whether assigning such power to an administrative agency is consistent with the constitutional requirements of Article III, the Seventh Amendment, and the nature of patents as property rights. At the intersection of patent law, administrative law, and constitutional law, Oil States is a blockbuster case in the October 2017 term that will impact the governmental branches, the law and the innovation economy.Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of LawProf. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawMr. Robert Greene Sterne, Director, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLCModerator: Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, and former Commissioner, United States International Trade Commission

In a decision likely to shape not only future biosimilar litigation but the biosimilar industry generally, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 2017 handed down its much-anticipated ruling in Amgen v. Sandoz. -- In the first case interpreting the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the Court (J. Thomas) unanimously reversed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that biosimilar makers need not wait for FDA approval before providing the reference product sponsor with 180-day notice of commercial marketing. The Court also held that the statute does not provide a federal injunctive cause of action to force biosimilar applicants to provide their FDA application to the reference sponsor, but remanded to the Federal Circuit to determine whether injunctive relief might be available to reference sponsors under state law. The decision raises intriguing questions of statutory construction and policy and is expected to speed market entry of biosimilars and increase competition.The Federalist Society’s uniquely qualified, expert panel discussed the decision and its implications for the industry and patent rights generally. -- Featuring: Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law and Prof. Erika Lietzan, Associate Professor of Law, University of Missouri School of Law.

Robin Feldman, director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Robin Feldman, director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Robin Feldman, Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the center for medicine and law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

(Bloomberg) -- Robin Feldman, Director of the Institute for Innovation Law at UC Hastings, and Gregory Dolin, co-director of the center for medicine and law at the University of Baltimore, discuss Tuesday's ruling in the Supreme Court case Impression Products v. Lexmark International. They speak June Grasso and Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. In 2011, the America Invents Act created an expedited procedure, known as inter partes review, to provide a cost-effective alternative to litigation for resolving certain challenges to patent validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, contained within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), hears these disputes rather than a federal district court. When construing patent claims, the Board applies a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard rather than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard typically applied by federal courts. -- Here, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. (Cuozzo) owns a speed limit indicator patent. Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin) petitioned the Board for inter partes review (IPR) of claims regarding the patent. The Board found that certain claims were unpatentable and denied Cuozzo’s request to replace those claims with several others. Cuozzo appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which (1) held that it lacked authority to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR, and (2) affirmed the Board’s final determination, finding no error in its application of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. -- There were two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the Board may, in IPR proceedings, construe claims according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the decision to institute the IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable. -- By a vote of 8-0 and 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the underlying statute precluded judicial review of the kind of claim at issue here, involving the PTO’s decision to institute IPR. The Court further concluded that the PTO was authorized to issue the regulation, setting forth the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. -- A unanimous Court joined Justice Breyer’s opinion with respect to Parts I and III. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Kagan joined the opinion with respect to Part II. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin, who is Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, which was consolidated with Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer. Both of these cases involved claims of patent infringement relating to the sale or marketing of various inventions. Both also involved a determination by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that an award of enhanced damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 was not appropriate, after applying the Circuit’s two-part objective/subjective test for willful or bad-faith infringement set forth in In re Seagate Tech., LLC. -- The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Federal Circuit’s refusal to allow enhanced damages absent a finding of willfulness under its two-part test was inconsistent with § 284, which provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test unduly confined the ability of district courts to exercise the discretion conferred on them by § 284. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin who is Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

On April 25, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee. In 2011 the America Invents Act created an expedited procedure, known as inter partes review, to provide a cost-effective alternative to litigation for resolving certain challenges to patent validity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board, contained within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), hears these disputes rather than a federal district court. When construing patent claims, the Board applies a “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard rather than the “plain and ordinary meaning” standard typically applied by federal courts. -- Here, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. (Cuozzo) owns a speed limit indicator patent. Garmin International, Inc. (Garmin) petitioned the Board for inter partes review (IPR) of claims regarding the patent. The Board found that certain claims were unpatentable, and denied Cuozzo’s request to replace those claims with several others. Cuozzo appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which (1) held that it lacked authority to review the PTO’s decision to institute IPR, and (2) affirmed the Board’s final determination, finding no error in its application of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. -- There are two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the Board may, in IPR proceedings, construe claims according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the decision to institute the IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin, who is Assistant Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

On February 23, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, which was consolidated with Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer. Both of these cases involved claims of patent infringement relating to the sale or marketing of various inventions. Both also involved a determination by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that an award of enhanced damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 was not appropriate, after applying the Circuit’s two-part objective/subjective test for willful or bad-faith infringement set forth in In re Seagate Tech., LLC. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Circuit’s refusal to allow enhanced damages absent a finding of willfulness under its two-part test contravenes the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284, given the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys' fee awards in exceptional cases. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin who is Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.