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?
Videos
Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer: Behind the Decision
Attorney Debbie Davidson (Morgan, Lewis & Blockius LLP) gives a detailed explanation of the recent Supreme Court case Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. The case, which was decided on June 25, 2014, affects employee retirement plan stock options.
Hobby Lobby at SCOTUS: Behind the Decision
On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court decided one of the most closely-watched cases of the Term. In their ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate does not require closely held for-profit companies to provide contraception coverage in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. Professor Christopher Schmidt (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the case, the ruling, and its implications in this video.
National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning: Behind the Decision
On June 26, 2014, the Supreme Court declared the recent use of presidential recess appointment power unconstitutional in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning. Professor Sanford Greenberg (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains this highly technical, yet very important, ruling.
Riley v. California: Behind the Decision
On April 25, the Supreme Court held that police must obtain a warrant to search the digital contents of an arrestee’s phone. The unanimous ruling raised many interesting points, and so Professor Douglas Godfrey (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) sat down to explain the decision. The decision was for both Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie.
ABC v. Aereo: Behind the Decision
Today, the Supreme Court ruled in ABC v. Aereo that Aereo’s service infringes on the copyrights of the broadcasters. Professor Edward Lee (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the details of the ruling and the unusual lineup of Justices in the majority.
The 2014 EPA Cases – Behind the Decision
Today, the Supreme Court decided Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, which was a consolidation of several cases brought against the EPA. Professor Dan Tarlock (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) discusses the complex issues behind the case and the implications of the decision.
Wood v. Moss: Behind the Decision
On May 27, 2014, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the qualified immunity of Secret Service agents in Wood v. Moss. But what does the decision mean? Professor Steven Heyman (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) takes you behind the decision and explains the key aspects of the case.
Town of Greece v. Galloway: Behind the Decision
On May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Town of Greece v. Galloway. The decision held that under the Establishment Clause, public prayer before a town council meeting was constitutional. Professor Christopher Schmidt (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law) explains the decision and its facets.
For more on this case, please visit the Oyez Project/ISCOTUS Deep Dive.
Nautilus & Limelight: Inside Two Cases
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.