Justice Breyer wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court on Thursday
in
AMG Capital Management v. Federal Trade
Commission, holding that § 13(b) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (FTCA) does not allow the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) to recover “equitable monetary relief such as
restitution or disgorgement.” This ruling puts an end to the
FTC s ability to seek such relief against direct sellers in
court under § 13(b). Rather, the FTC must initiate lengthy and
burdensome administrative proceedings under the FTCA, which forces
the FTC to deal with numerous disadvantages, including a 3-year
statute of limitations and a higher standard of proof requiring
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
A recent case decided Feb. 10 has the nursing home industry and
plaintiff malpractice attorneys clamoring over whether
certain measures taken by nursing homes during the pandemic should
be immune from plaintiff negligence lawsuits against nursing
homes. (
See Garcia et al v. Welltower OpCo Group LLC, et
al).
In
Garcia, the complaint accuses defendants of failing
to take adequate measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The
case was filed by the sons of a deceased facility resident.
The court ruled that the plaintiff could not criticize the
What is Supplemental Examination?
Supplemental examination (SE) gives patent owners a proactive
tool to have the USPTO consider, reconsider, or correct
information that the patent owner believes is relevant
to the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 257(a). The information
that may be submitted with a supplemental examination request is
not limited and includes any and all information that could be
relevant to an allegation of inequitable conduct or unclean
hands.
The benefit of supplemental examination is that any information considered, reconsidered, or corrected during a supplemental
examination of the patent cannot be the basis for a holding
of unenforceability. 35 U.S.C. § 257(c)(1). In other
Obhan & Associates
Trademarks Comparative Guide for the jurisdiction of India, check out our comparative guides section to compare across multiple countries
Dennemeyer Group
Though we may not all admit it, few among us can resist the appeal of a candy bar. But did you know the history of these confections and their value as Intellectual Property assets?
Jenner & Block
On April 5, 2021, the US Supreme Court decided the long-running and closely-watched case of Google v. Oracle
Volpe Koenig
Functional claim language which defines an invention by what it does rather than what it is can be a powerful claim drafting tool when used carefully.
In
Before Apple s appeal, but following the dispute at the
PTAB, the two parties reached a settlement in all litigations
involving the patents at issue. The parties executed a six-year
licensing agreement with respect to those patents. Apple maintained
its appeal from the PTAB.
The Federal Circuit held that, although Article III standing is
not required to appear before an administrative agency, an appeal
from an agency s final action to a federal court requires the
appellant to show an injury in fact. The Federal Circuit found that
there was insufficient evidence Apple suffered an injury in fact.
In so doing, the Court held that the outcome of the IPR would not