image description

Archives

  • ERISA—Church Plans

    Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, No. 16-74 St. Peter’s Healthcare System v. Kaplan, No. 16-86 Dignity Health v. Rollins, No. 16-258 The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) governs employers that offer pension and other benefits to their employees. However, “church plans” are exempt from ERISA. The United States Courts of Appeals […]

  • Patent Act—Exhaustion

    Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., No. 15-1189 The doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that, after the first authorized sale of a patented article, the purchaser can use, repair, or resell the article without infringing the patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has created two exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine, […]

  • Federal Employees Health Benefits Act—Preemption of State Law

    Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils, No. 16-149 To provide health benefits to federal employees, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) authorizes the Office of Personnel Management to contract with private insurers. Those contracts require insurers to seek subrogation or reimbursement when covered employees injured by third parties receive payments from those third […]

  • Federal Arbitration Act—Preemption of State Law

    Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, No. 16-32 In refusing to enforce arbitration agreements between two nursing homes and their residents, the Kentucky Supreme Court held, by a 4-3 vote, that a family member who has been given a power of attorney lacks the authority to sign an arbitration agreement on behalf of her […]

  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—Time-Barred Debts

    Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348 The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) prohibits a debt collector from using a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt” and prohibits a debt collector from using “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” […]

  • Sovereign Immunity—Employees of an Indian Tribe

    Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500 Indian tribes possess some of the attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity. In this case, an employee of an Indian tribe was sued in his individual capacity for negligently causing a car crash that took place off the reservation but within the scope of the employee’s employment. The Court will […]

  • Due Process—Civil Sanctions

    Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406 Federal courts possess the inherent authority to sanction parties for misconduct. Such sanctions can be compensatory or punitive, but punitive sanctions can be entered only if the party facing sanctions is accorded the procedural due process rights ordinarily associated with criminal defendants. The Court has granted […]

  • First Amendment—Commercial Speech

    Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, No. 15-1391 When merchants accept payments by credit card, they incur processing fees that they would not incur in a cash transaction. As a result, some merchants opt to charge different prices for customers paying cash and for those paying with credit cards. In ten states, including New York, such […]

  • Lanham Act—Disparaging Trademarks

    Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293 The Lanham Act provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, as relevant here, it “[c]onsists of … matter which may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” The U.S. Court of Appeals […]

  • Administrative Enforcement Actions—Judicial Review of Subpoenas

    McLane v. EEOC, No. 15-1248 When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigates an employer, the Commission has the statutory authority to subpoena any evidence “relevant to the charge under investigation.” A subpoenaed party that doubts the relevance of the evidence sought can ask a federal district court to quash the subpoena. The Court granted certiorari […]

  • Fair Housing Act—Standing

    Bank of America Corp. v. Miami, No. 15-1111 Wells Fargo & Co. v. Miami, No. 15-1112 The Fair Housing Act (FHA) permits any “aggrieved person” to sue for housing discrimination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that a person is “aggrieved” for purposes of the FHA whenever he has standing under […]

  • Sherman Act—Conspiracy by Members of a Business Association

    Visa v. Osborn, No. 15-961 Visa v. Stoumbos, No. 15-962 Prior to initial public offerings in 2008 and 2006, respectively, Visa and MasterCard were owned by groups of member banks. Plaintiffs filed suit under the Sherman Antitrust Act, alleging that Visa and MasterCard had conspired with their member banks to reduce competition for the fees […]

  • Bankruptcy Code—Structured Dismissals

    Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649 A Chapter 11 bankruptcy is implemented through a plan that assigns allowed claims to classes of different priority levels. Unsecured claimants without priority are not entitled to any payment on their claims until all priority claims have been satisfied. Czyzewski involves a company that, shortly before declaring bankruptcy, […]

  • Federal Jurisdiction—Fannie Mae

    Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., No. 14-1055 The Federal National Mortgage Association—better known as “Fannie Mae”—is a quasi-governmental enterprise that operates under a federal charter but that has private owners. Fannie Mae’s charter authorizes the entity to sue and be sued “in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal.” 12 U.S.C. § 1723a(a). The Supreme […]

  • Patent Act—Infringement by Exportation of Components

    Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538 A U.S. patent typically does not protect an inventor from the manufacture and use of his invention abroad.  But Section 271(f) of the Patent Act provides that it is infringement to export from the United States a “substantial portion” of the unassembled components of a patented invention […]

  • False Claims Act—Remedy for Release of Sealed Complaint

    State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513 The False Claims Act permits a qui tam relator to bring a civil action alleging that a false claim has been made against the United States. The complaint must be filed under seal, in part to permit the United States an […]

  • Patent Act—Availability of Laches Defense

    SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927 Although the Patent Act has a six-year statutory limitations period for patent infringement claims, the Federal Circuit has historically permitted infringement defendants to invoke the equitable defense of laches to bar claims for money damages, if the plaintiff inexcusably delayed filing suit and […]

  • Copyright Act—Useful Articles

    Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866 The Copyright Act does not protect the “design of a … useful article,” but the “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features” of a useful article can be copyrighted if they can be “identified” and “exist[] independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. In […]

  • Patent Act—Remedy for Infringement

    Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777 The Patent Act provides that a patent infringer “shall be liable to the owner to the extent of his total profit.”  Id. § 289.  In a high-profile patent dispute, Apple sued Samsung for infringing several design patents related to the Apple iPhone.  A jury found that Samsung […]

  • Fair Labor Standards Act—Overtime Pay for “Service Advisors” at Car Dealerships

    Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 15-415 The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) requires overtime pay for certain employees when they work more than 40 hours per week. It exempts from this rule “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(1)(A). The plaintiffs, a group of “service […]