This late-summer edition of Commercial Roundup features a notable ruling on personal jurisdiction, a pair of False Claims Act decisions, a couple of opinions tossing class certification orders, a 2-1 split in a securities fraud case (the dissent has the better end of it), a rare victory for plaintiffs in an action for unlawful maintenance
Welcome to this week’s Commercial Roundup—in which you’ll find links to the most significant rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 13 Courts of Appeals plus the highest courts in Delaware, New York, and Texas. You’ll also see other matters of interest to commercial trial lawyers and the firms and business people they represent.
This week a couple of Latin phrases we learned in the first year of law school headline the list. The first—res ipsa loquitur—means something like “the thing (res) speaks (loquitur) for itself (ipsa)” and provides a shortcut for a party wishing to prove a claim of negligence. The other Latin phrase—forum non conveniens—suggests the plaintiff brought a case in a place (forum) whose remoteness to the parties, witnesses, and sources of proof and lack of expertise in governing law (among other factors) render it sufficiently inconvenient (non conveniens) as to justify dismissing the case in favor of, or transferring it to, a much more convenient forum.
We also have an important First Circuit ruling on a pair of issues that arise often in efforts to enforce arbitration clauses and confirm awards, a “tacking” question regarding priority of trademarks, and decisions on when limitations starts to run in securities fraud cases, insurance coverage for COVID-19 losses, damages remedy for fraudulent transfer, and when prior art “anticipates” a claim limitation without mentioning it.
So here we go—Commercial Roundup for the week of April 5-12.Continue Reading Commercial Roundup – April 12, 2023
Welcome back to The Contingency!
Starting next Wednesday, we’ll resume a weekly schedule for posting a roundup of the biggest commercial-law rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the highest courts of Delaware, New York, and Texas.
By “commercial law”, we mean the stuff of disputes with or
When the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame inducted long-time Chicago Bulls shooting guard Michael Jordan in 2009, Jewel Food Stores gave an assist by agreeing to sell (in its 175 Windy City-area grocery stores) a special Sports Illustrated issue that honored Jordan and his awesome career. SI in return provided Jewel a free throw – a full-page
The Swiss company Swatch makes stylish watches but takes itself Way Too Seriously.
A couple of weeks ago, Swatch lost an appeal over whether the maker of low-end, cutie-pie Swap watches infringed the high-end, hoity-toity Swatch trademark. "Swiss Swatch Swings at Swap, Whiffs".
This week, Swatch lost an appeal having to do with an
The big three of intellectual property disputes in federal courts – the Copyright Act, the Patent Act, and the Lanham (Trademark) Act – drew the focus of the U.S. Supreme Court today. The justices granted review in three IP cases and one IP-ish one. The cases present these questions:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding
Herb Reed Enterprises (HRE) claimed that Larry Marshak infringed HRE's trademark rights in "The Platters", a name and mark that relate to a singing group whose hey-day spanned the second half of the 1950s.
The band split up in the 1960s. But nostalgia for "The Great Pretender", "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes", and "Only You"
When a Russian hands you a shot glass and as you drink down the clear liquid shouts ze vashe zdrovye!, he means to your health!
The vodka won't in fact extend your life, but it could make you giddy for awhile.
Russians may need a drink after last week's thrashing in the Second Circuit. Two entities from the
Snappy reclines. The Empire State Building looms in the mid-distance. Bitey consults his notes. He clears his throat.
Bitey: The U.S. Supreme Court's summer break started last week, Snaps, and the time has come for us to look at the . . . uh . . . results of the 2012-13 Term for those commercial cases
If you want to jam a stick in the spokes of the turning wheel we call litigation, how do you get the most bang for your buck?
Here's how: You hire a lawyer. But you don't pay him. And then you fire him. You retain a new one. Ignore her bills. Let her go. Repeat