The U.S. Supreme Court has taken away a potentially devastating defense from companies that induce others to infringe patents.
The Court ruled in Commil USA, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, slip op. at 10 (U.S. May 26, 2015), that "a defendant's belief regarding patent validity" does not provide "a defense to a
False opinions
Giving a knowingly false opinion about a public company can expose the company and its insiders to liability for securities fraud under federal law.
But what about an opinion that they truly believe but for which they have a flimsy basis?
The Supreme Court held today that the lack of rigor may indeed
Did high-flyer Winstar co-opt its auditing firm?
Defendants facing securities fraud claims have won more than their share of cases in the last half a decade or so. Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court have helped.
In 2011, for instance, the Court ruled that you must have "ultimate authority" to make a false statement
When something hits him on the head, Chicken Little gets an epiphany, and he runs to warn the king that the sky has commenced to falling. Converts rally to his cause. A great cry goes up in the land. And fear stalks the streets.
The sky hasn't fallen at all, of course. Just an acorn.
Kind of the
Blawgletter wrote a couple of years ago that the tougher test for pleading securities fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007), "would logically mean that the reasonable person wouldn't conclude he, she, or it had a claim until he-she-it learned facts suggesting
Yesterday, the Supreme Court peppered Merck's lawyer with hot questions. Before he started, at least, the advocate likely harbored hope that he could convince Their Honors that the two-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. 1658(b) starts running before the plaintiff could have alleged enough facts to survive a motion to dismiss under the tough pleading standards of Bell Atl. Corp.