By Michael Gentithes, Visiting Assistant Professor, Chicago-Kent College of Law. Supreme Court cases can lose relevance when technological changes render obsolete the questions addressed. Rare, though, is the case that loses its relevance before the opinion is even drafted. That fate may await currently pending case of United States v. Microsoft Corp. The case, in … Continue reading Digital Forensics and the Shrinking Importance of United States v. Microsoft Corp.
On October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Sandoz, a pharmaceutical patent case that could clarify critical issues of claim construction in patent litigation as well as the relative power of trial courts and appellate courts in such matters. Professor David Schwartz (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the background of the case and the central issue: What is the proper standard of review that the appellate court should use to review claim constructions of a patent done by trial courts?
On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., and two days later, the Court heard argument in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. These two patent cases have important implications for intellectual property law. Professor David Schwartz (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues and background of both cases.
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Riley v. California. This case raises a complicated question about technology: Can the police search your cell phone upon arrest without a warrant? Professor Kimberly Bailey (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the background of the case and the issues at stake.
On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in Lane v. Franks. This case questions the extent of free speech against qualified immunity. Professor Sheldon Nahmod (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the background and issues at stake in the case.
Today, the Supreme Court hears oral argument in American Broadcasting Company, Inc. v. Aereo. Professor Edward Lee of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law explains why Aereo’s system is a problem for the broadcasters and what the issues are in this case.
Wood v. Moss
On March 26, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Wood v. Moss, a case about the First Amendment rights of protesters and qualified immunity of government officials. Professor Steven Heyman of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law explains the background and the issues at stake in the case.
Harris v. Quinn
Harris v. Quinn is a labor case out of Illinois that questions a tenet of union membership. With its potentially far-reaching consequences, Professor Martin Malin (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the issues at stake before the Supreme Court.
NLRB v. Noel Canning
In January 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Even though this case seems technical at first glance, its wide-ranging impact could affect the political process and the functioning ability of a partisan US government.
Professor Carolyn Shapiro (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the case and its implications.
Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison
The Supreme Court will hear Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison in January. Here to explain this layered bankruptcy case are Professor Adrian Walters of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law and Judge Timothy Barnes of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois.