Mayer Brown's more than 45 appellate lawyers have argued more than 250 cases before the Supreme Court—including eighteen in the five most recent Terms—as well as hundreds more in federal and state appellate courts across the nation.
The Supreme Court has long held that Section 101 contains implicit exceptions to the scope of subject matter that is patentable.
Google retained us to defend it against patent infringement claims relating to e-commerce. buySAFE asserted claims as to third-party performance guarantees in the context of Internet commerce.
After the Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the extraterritorial reach of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, we were retained by a series of European banking associations who appeared as amici.
In a resounding victory for our client, the Second Circuit adopted our argument that the Trust Indenture Act, which extends certain statutory requirements and protections to trust instruments, doesn’t apply to residential mortgage-backed securities.
The America Invents Act creates a post-grant review mechanism at the Patent & Trademark Office for certain Covered Business Method (“CBM”) patents.
The patent exhaustion doctrine provides that, following a first, authorized sale of a patented article, the patentee has exhausted its rights to the product.
The International Trade Commission instituted a Section 337 investigation against Sino Legend, pursuant to a complaint that it misappropriated a competitor’s trade secret in China.
Following an investigation, the International Trade Commission concluded that certain manufacturers violated Standard Innovation’s patent claims relating to certain consumer electronics.
The Indian Major Crimes Act establishes federal criminal jurisdiction over certain violent offenses committed by Indians within Indian Country.
The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) creates a private cause of action against entities that engage in acts of terrorism.
Trademark tacking permits a trademark owner to make insubstantial alterations to a mark without losing priority. Tacking is permitted in only the most narrow of circumstances; the two marks must qualify as “legal equivalents.”
Section 1983 permits an individual to bring a claim for a constitutional violation, including equal protection claims, against a state government official.
After CSX won a jury verdict on a plaintiff’s Federal Employers Liability Act claim, we were retained to defend the victory.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the question of patent exhaustion in the context of patented soybean seeds.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a posthumously conceived child qualifies as a “child” for purposes of Social Security survivorship benefits.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the proper construction of the “Transmit Clause” of the Copyright Act as it relates to a company that permits users to watch television programs over the Internet.
A number of individuals brought suit against multiple Hungarian banks, arguing that various property expropriations occurred at predecessor institutions during World War II.
A chiropractor and his practice group brought a putative class action against our client, State Farm, for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from the insurer’s alleged operation a “silent PPO.”
Former students at for-profit colleges brought a putative class action against the colleges, claiming that they were misled into enrolling and taking out student loans (which they could not repay) by assurances about their job prospects after completing their studies.
The plaintiffs in this case brought a multistate class action in federal court in Oklahoma on behalf of customers of AT&T, alleging that they were dissatisfied with AT&T’s U-Verse service (which provides television, voice, and Internet services).
Edited and authored by Mayer Brown lawyers, Bloomberg BNA’s Tenth Edition, Supreme Court Practice provides a comprehensive analysis of the Supreme Court.
Edited and authored by Mayer Brown lawyers, Bloomberg BNA’s Third Edition, Federal Appellate Practice book is the primary resource for fully understanding the federal appellate process.
JMC v. VNA, No. 14-944, Pet Reply (FINAL)