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?
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases on Tuesday. I’m predicting the winners of the Supreme Court cases based on the number of questions asked during oral argument. Studies have shown that the advocate who receives more questions during oral argument is more likely to lose. For more about this method, see my … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Kansas v. Nebraska and N.C. Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC
It has been a remarkably exciting opening week of the new Term at the Supreme Court. The biggest news came right at the opening “Oyez.” With most Court watchers confidently predicting that this was going to be the term when the justices squarely faced the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans, the justices announced at 9:30 … Continue reading Recapping the Opening Week at the Supreme Court, October Term 2014
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases on Wednesday, October 8, in the first week of the October 2014 Term. As I hope to do all Term, I’m predicting the winners of the Supreme Court cases based on the number of questions asked during oral argument. It’s well established that the advocate who … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk and Warger v. Shauers
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases on October 7, 2014. I’m predicting the winners of the cases based on the method of question counting—i.e., the advocate that receives more questions during oral argument is more likely to lose. For more about this method, see my post on last Term’s Aereo case. The first case … Continue reading Predicting the Winners in Holt v. Hobbs and Dart Cherokee Co. v. Owens
[Reposted from IIT Chicago-Kent Faculty Blog] The Supreme Court opened its October 2014 Term by hearing oral argument in Heien v. North Carolina, which raises the question: Whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop? I am using the same method … Continue reading Heien v. North Carolina—Predicting the Winner Based on the Oral Argument
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in an intriguing religious freedom case brought by Gregory Holt. Holt is in an Arkansas prison, serving a life sentence for burglary and domestic battery. While in prison, Holt converted to Islam, took the name Abdul Maalik Muhammad, and, in accordance with his religious beliefs, sought to … Continue reading Religious Rights and Bearded Prisoners
In a turn of events that caught many Court-watchers off guard, the Supreme Court today denied review of the seven pending cases challenging state prohibitions on same-sex marriages. In recent weeks, a consensus seemed to be emerging among commentators that this was the Term in which the Court would return to the same-sex marriage fray—and … Continue reading Same-Sex Marriage Issue on Hold at the Supreme Court—For Now
We know same-sex marriage is coming back to the Supreme Court. What we don’t know is when. The lineup of cases for the Court’s upcoming term is rather light on cases that really capture public attention. There are plenty of interesting cases on tap, but no real blockbusters. If the justices are interested in livening … Continue reading Is Same-Sex Marriage Coming Back to the Supreme Court This Term?