Podcasts about oil states energy services

In this episode, we catch up with Patrick McKeever from Oil States Energy Services at the Offshore Technology Conference (OTC). Patrick introduces us to the award-winning ACTIVELatch, a groundbreaking technology recognized with the Technology Spotlight Award. We discuss its innovative features, including a 100% wireless, battery-powered design, intuitive user interface and enhanced safety protocols. Learn about its field applications and how it's transforming efficiency and safety in the oil and gas industry. Don't miss the look into the future of automated oilfield technology.

The 5th Circuit has never been in the top 10 circuits in terms of not being insane, but now it has gone even more off the rails. Andrew takes us through the deep dive on a terrible decision that will decimate the SEC's ability to do anything, and why the logic will be applied elsewhere. Before that, a quick update on how much Elon Musk sucks and has completely blown it with the Twitter deal. And a quick word on primaries. Links: Twitter says it will 'enforce' Elon Musk's $44 billion acquisition deal, 28Patriot” v. SEC, 15 US Code § 78u–2 - Civil remedies in administrative proceedings, Jellum & Tincher, “The Shadow of Free Enterprise”, Are the SEC's Administrative Law Judges Biased? An Empirical Investigation, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 138 S.Ct. 1365 (2018), Summary of Administrative Law Judge Responsibilities

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar grounds. The majority found that ruling otherwise would “unwind the agency’s merits decision” and “operate to save bad patent claims.”While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review). Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.Featuring:-- Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C.

In Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP (Supreme Court, April 20, 2020), the Supreme Court held that the Patent Office decision to hear an inter partes review (“IPR”) challenge is not subject to judicial review on time-bar grounds. The majority found that ruling otherwise would “unwind the agency’s merits decision” and “operate to save bad patent claims.”While this case deals largely with an issue of IPR appellate procedure, it should be interesting to a wider audience because it illustrates the Justices' disparate views on a key question: are issued patents property?In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Gorsuch argued that the Constitution does not permit a “politically guided agency” (here the Patent Office) to revoke a property right (like an issued patent) without judicial review. He analogized issued patents to the land patents that the government once granted to “homesteaders who moved west.” He expressed his view that since the Court would not “allow a bureaucracy in Washington to ‘cancel’ a citizen’s right to his farm…” the Court should not allow the Patent Office to cancel an issued patent (especially without judicial review). Justice Gorsuch’s dissent argued against the core principles established in the Supreme Court’s Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, 584 U. S. ___ (2018) decision—where he also dissented. In Oil States, the Supreme Court held that patents are not “property rights” in the traditional sense, but rather are “public franchises” granted (and subject to revocation) by the government. Oil States left, for another day, the question of whether compensation is required, and in what circumstances, when the government acts to revoke a previously granted patent.In response to Justice Gorsuch’s dissent, the majority asserted that:The dissent acknowledges that “Congress authorized inter partes review to encourage further scrutiny of already issued patents.” . . . The second look Congress put in place is assigned to the very same bureaucracy that granted the patent in the first place. Why should that bureaucracy be trusted to give an honest count on first view, but a jaundiced one on second look?The majority reached its conclusion – the Patent Office’s decision to hear an IPR challenge is not reviewable on time-bar grounds – in harmony with the expressed purpose of IPR reviews: making it easier to eliminate “bad patents” and to prevent the “wast[e] of resources spent resolving patentability.” Essentially, majority concluded that if the patent owner was able to challenge the PTO’s decision to cancel a patent on the merits – as opposed to on the procedure – she would do so (and such merits based challenges are subject to judicial review).Please join our expert, Daniel L. Geyser, in a discussion of the oral argument. Dan represented Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, in the Supreme Court.Featuring:-- Mr. Daniel L. Geyser, Chair, Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, Geyser, P.C.

This episode of Fish Post-Grant Radio features Frank Porcelli and Dan Smith – attorneys at Fish & Richardson. In this interview, they discuss the Supreme Court’s decisions relating to Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group and SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu.

Under what circumstances may patents be revoked or modified? What process is due? The questions animating Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group have been answered. The Supreme Court Opinion that came down today 7-2 affirms the constitutionality of the jurisdiction of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, a non-Article III forum without a jury. Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityBrian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Under what circumstances may patents be revoked or modified? What process is due? The questions animating Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group have been answered. The Supreme Court Opinion that came down today 7-2 affirms the constitutionality of the jurisdiction of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, a non-Article III forum without a jury. Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Founder, Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property and Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityBrian Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy GroupHas the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. SAS Institute v. MatalIn SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims. The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.Featuring:Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLCMr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy GroupHas the administrative state gone too far into disputes over innovation and technology? That question animates Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday, November 27 over whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury. SAS Institute v. MatalIn SAS Institute v. Matal, the question presented is, in the context of post-grant review of a patent under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must issue a final written decision on the validity of every patent claim challenged, or can the PTAB rule on only some of the patent claims challenged. This case involves a relatively confined question of statutory construction, but, assuming the Supreme Court does not dismantle the AIA’s post-grant review system in Oil States, SAS Institute has the potential to dramatically change post-grant patent challenges. The statute at issue, 35 U.S.C. 318(a), mandates: “If an inter partes review is instituted . . . , the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner . . . .” The Patent Office interprets this provision to mean that the PTAB need provide a final written decision on only the claims the PTAB reviews in full. Thus, under current practice, a patent challenger can ask the PTAB to cancel all claims of a patent when filing an IPR petition, but the PTAB may institute full review of only some of the claims. The final written decision is limited to only those claims the PTAB reviews in full. Petitioner in SAS Institute challenges this practice, arguing that the plain text of the statute, along with the statutory text and purpose, requires a decision on all challenged claims. The case has important implications about the AIA process, the degree to which AIA review of patents creates finality to patent validity determinations, and the applicability of Chevron deference to the Patent Office’s rules and procedures.Featuring:Mr. Matthew J. Dowd, Founder, Dowd PLLCMr. Brian H. Pandya, Partner, Wiley Rein Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC | 11/27/17 | Docket #: 16-712

Argued 11/27/2017. Description from Oyez.org: "A case in which the Court will decide whether inter partes review, an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office, unconstitutionally deprives patent holders of their right to a jury and access to an Article III forum before depriving them of a property right."

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC will be argued in the Supreme Court on November 27. While the case originated from a patent infringement suit over hydraulic fracking technique, it has made it to the Supreme Court for Oil States’ challenge of the practice of inter partes review by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Inter partes review is a process in which a patent conflict is brought before the PTAB so that one party can argue for the invalidation of the other party’s patent. Oil States argues that patents are property and this procedure violates the constitutional property rights of patent owners to a jury and an Article III trial.Featuring:Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawJohn Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Hansen Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC will be argued in the Supreme Court on November 27. While the case originated from a patent infringement suit over hydraulic fracking technique, it has made it to the Supreme Court for Oil States’ challenge of the practice of inter partes review by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Inter partes review is a process in which a patent conflict is brought before the PTAB so that one party can argue for the invalidation of the other party’s patent. Oil States argues that patents are property and this procedure violates the constitutional property rights of patent owners to a jury and an Article III trial.Featuring:Prof. Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawJohn Thorne, Partner, Kellogg, Hansen Todd, Figel & Frederick, P.L.L.C. Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On Friday, October 6, The Federalist Society hosted a special 90-minute Teleforum to preview the significant cases of the Supreme Court's October 2017 Term. Our experts discussed Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Christie v. NCAA, Carpenter v. US, Gill v. Whitford, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group and more. Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of LawProf. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor Concurrent Professor of Political Science, The Law School, University of Notre DameEugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherIlya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court ReviewProf. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

On Friday, October 6, The Federalist Society hosted a special 90-minute Teleforum to preview the significant cases of the Supreme Court's October 2017 Term. Our experts discussed Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Christie v. NCAA, Carpenter v. US, Gill v. Whitford, Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, Jennings v. Rodriguez, Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group and more. Featuring:Dr. John Eastman, Professor, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, Chapman University School of LawProf. Richard W. Garnett, Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor Concurrent Professor of Political Science, The Law School, University of Notre DameEugene Scalia, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherIlya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute and Editor-In-Chief, Cato Supreme Court ReviewProf. Louis Michael Seidman, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center