|
|
|
High Court Rules in Dispute Over Immigrant Teen's Abortion
Patent Law |
2018/06/04 13:18
|
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in a case about a pregnant immigrant teen who obtained an abortion with the help of the ACLU, siding with the Trump administration and wiping away a lower court decision for the teen but rejecting a suggestion her lawyers should be disciplined.
The decision is about the teen's individual case and doesn't disrupt ongoing class action litigation about the ability of immigrant teens in government custody to obtain abortions. The justices ruled in an unsigned opinion that vacating a lower court decision in favor of the teen, who had been in government custody after entering the country illegally, was the proper course because the case became moot after she obtained an abortion.
Government lawyers had complained to the Supreme Court that attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union didn't alert them that the teen's abortion would take place earlier than expected. The administration said that deprived its lawyers of the chance to ask the Supreme Court to block the procedure, at least temporarily. The Trump administration told the court that discipline might be warranted against the teen's attorneys. The ACLU said its lawyers did nothing wrong.
The Supreme Court said it took the government's allegations "seriously" but the court declined to wade into the finger-pointing between the sides.
"Especially in fast-paced, emergency proceedings like those at issue here, it is critical that lawyers and courts alike be able to rely on one another's representations. On the other hand, lawyers also have ethical obligations to their clients and not all communications breakdowns constitute misconduct," the justices wrote in a 5-page opinion, adding that the court "need not delve into the factual disputes raised by the parties" in order to vacate the decision for the teen.
The teen at the center of the case entered the U.S. illegally in September as a 17-year-old and was taken to a federally funded shelter in Texas for minors who enter the country without their parents. The unnamed teen, referred to as Jane Doe, learned while in custody that she was pregnant and sought an abortion. A state court gave her permission, but federal officials — citing a policy of refusing to facilitate abortions for pregnant minors in its shelters — refused to transport her or temporarily release her so that others could take her for the procedure.
The ACLU helped the teen sue the Trump administration, and after a federal appeals court sided with her, the government was preparing to ask the Supreme Court to step in and block the procedure, at least temporarily.
But the teen, allowed out of the shelter by court order, had an abortion first, about 12 hours after a court gave her the go-ahead. In response, the Trump administration, in a highly unusual filing with the Supreme Court, cried foul. The ACLU has defended its attorneys' actions, saying government lawyers made assumptions about the timing of the teen's abortion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court limits warrantless vehicle searches near homes
Patent Law |
2018/06/01 03:21
|
The Supreme Court is putting limits on the ability of police to search vehicles when they do not have a search warrant.
The court sided 8-1 Tuesday with a Virginia man who complained that police walked onto his driveway and pulled back a tarp covering his motorcycle, which turned out to be stolen. They acted without a warrant, relying on a line of Supreme Court cases generally allowing police to search a vehicle without a warrant.
The justices said the automobile exception does not apply when searching vehicles parked adjacent to a home.
The court ruled in the case of Ryan Collins, who was arrested at the home of his girlfriend in Charlottesville, Virginia. Collins had twice eluded police in high-speed chases in which he rode an orange and black motorcycle.
The authorities used Collins' Facebook page to eventually track the motorcycle to his girlfriend's home.
Collins argued that police improperly entered private property uninvited and without a warrant.
Virginia's Supreme Court said the case involved what the Supreme Court has called the "automobile exception," which generally allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they believe the vehicle contains contraband.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said for the court Tuesday that the state court was wrong. Sotomayor said that constitutional protections for a person's home and the area surrounding it, the curtilage, outweigh the police interest in conducting a vehicle search without a warrant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-whaling activist to testify in US court
Patent Law |
2013/11/08 14:05
|
A fugitive anti-whaling activist known for confronting Japanese whaling vessels off Antarctica is due to testify about his actions in a U.S. court Wednesday.
Paul Watson, founder of the Oregon-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, is expected to take the witness stand in a contempt of court hearing in Seattle.
The Japanese whalers argue that the organization 10 times violated an order barring its vessels from attacking or coming within 500 yards of the whaling ships. They've asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to impose fines of $100,000 for each violation, though they suggested the court waive those fines as long as the protesters stop confronting their ships.
The case is part of a long-running fight between the protesters and Japan's whaling fleet, which kills up to 1,000 whales a year, as allowed by the International Whaling Commission.
Japan is permitted to hunt the animals as long as they are killed for research and not commercial purposes, but whale meat not used for study is sold as food in Japan. Critics say that's the real reason for the hunts.
For several years, Sea Shepherd operated anti-whaling campaigns in the Southern Ocean. Activists aboard its vessels would hurl acid and smoke bombs at the whalers and drag ropes in the water to damage their propellers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NY court protects French shoemaker's red soles
Patent Law |
2012/09/07 13:54
|
A federal appeals court in Manhattan says the distinctive red soles of Christian Louboutin shoes are entitled to trademark protection.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled in favor of the French maker of luxury shoes worn by stars such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Scarlett Johansson and Halle Berry.
The court says Louboutin is entitled to protect its brand against red-soled shoes made by competitor Yves Saint Laurent S.A.S., which is also based in Paris.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2008 had granted the trademark protection to Louboutin.
Louboutin has applied glossy vivid red to the outsoles of women's shoes since 1992. The shoes sell for up to $1,000 a pair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eBay sued for $3.8bn for patent infringement
Patent Law |
2010/07/14 06:49
|
The online auctioneer eBay is being sued for $3.8m over six alleged patent infringements and breaking a confidentiality agreement relating to its PayPal payment service. According to Reuters, XPRT Ventures claims that eBay incorporated information shared in confidence into the "PayPal Buyer Credit" and "Pay Later" services, and used it in a 2003 patent application. "This involves a trade secret theft, along with sheer patent infringement," said Steven Moore, a partner at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP representing the plaintiff. "It is bad enough to take someone's technology, but it is a bit much to use it in your own patent application." The payments division of eBay generated $2.8bn in 2009, 32% of their $8.73bn total for the year. XPRT seems to be looking for a chunk of this, seeking a minimum of $3.8bn in monetary damages. It is also seeking treble damages resulting from eBay's alleged "willful and malicious conduct", punitive damages, among other claims. Much like Facebook in the case brought by Paul Ceglia that we reported yesterday, eBay dismissed the complaint as "without merit". A spokeswoman said: "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court Shoots Down Patents on Human Gene Sequences
Patent Law |
2010/04/02 09:15
|
A federal judge on Monday struck down patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. The decision, if upheld, could throw into doubt the patents covering thousands of human genes and reshape the law of intellectual property United States District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet issued the 152-page decision, which invalidated seven patents related to the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, whose mutations have been associated with cancer. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York joined with individual patients and medical organizations to challenge the patents last May: they argued that genes, products of nature, fall outside of the realm of things that can be patented. The patents, they argued, stifle research and innovation and limit testing options. Myriad Genetics, the company that holds the patents with the University of Utah Research Foundation, asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it and makes it patentable. Such patents, it said, have been granted for decades; the Supreme Court upheld patents on living organisms in 1980. In fact, many in the patent field had predicted the courts would throw out the suit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
U.S. court rejects Microsoft patent case appeal
Patent Law |
2010/04/01 09:49
|
A federal appeals court denied on Thursday Microsoft Corp's request that a full panel of judges rehear arguments in its long-running patent dispute with a small Canadian technology company. The decision is a blow to the world's largest software maker, which has been embroiled in a dispute with Toronto-based i4i Ltd over a feature in Microsoft's Word application for more than three years. Microsoft could yet take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, or make a new request to the appeals court. The company is considering its options, according to a spokesman. A federal jury awarded i4i $290 million last August after finding that Microsoft had infringed a patent belonging to i4i relating to text manipulation software in the 2003 and 2007 versions of Word, Microsoft's word processing application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Class action or a representative action is a form of lawsuit in which a large group of people collectively bring a claim to court and/or in which a class of defendants is being sued. This form of collective lawsuit originated in the United States and is still predominantly a U.S. phenomenon, at least the U.S. variant of it. In the United States federal courts, class actions are governed by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule. Since 1938, many states have adopted rules similar to the FRCP. However, some states like California have civil procedure systems which deviate significantly from the federal rules; the California Codes provide for four separate types of class actions. As a result, there are two separate treatises devoted solely to the complex topic of California class actions. Some states, such as Virginia, do not provide for any class actions, while others, such as New York, limit the types of claims that may be brought as class actions. They can construct your law firm a brand new website, lawyer website templates and help you redesign your existing law firm site to secure your place in the internet. |
Law Firm Directory
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
