Archive | Case Analysis RSS feed for this section

Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Iyana Smith On April 4th, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a ruling of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, determining that the applicable three-year statute of limitations barred none of Psihoyos’s infringement claims because he exercised his due diligence and did not discover the infringements […]

Comments { 0 }

BlackBerry Wins Order Prohibiting Sales of Typo Products Keyboard

Dylan Mooney Judge William Orrick from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently granted a preliminary injunction preventing Typo Products, a company backed and co-founded by Ryan Seacrest, from selling their snap-on accessory for smartphones.1 The product in question is a keyboard that can be attached to an iPhone and bears […]

Comments { 0 }

Law v. Siegel, 134 S.Ct. 1188

Katherine Rosenblatt On March 4, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its trend of limiting the equitable powers of the bankruptcy courts under 11 U.S.C. § 105. In Law v. Siegel, the Court held that bankruptcy courts may not order a debtor’s exempt assets be used to pay administrative expenses incurred as a result of […]

Comments { 0 }

Credit Suisse pays $885 Million to Settle U.S. Mortgage Case

Sasha Boshart Suisse Group AG has become the latest bank to settle with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) over allegations it misrepresented mortgage-backed securities sold before the financial crisis, hopefully setting the stage for future reform.1 . It also happens to be one of about a dozen Swiss banks under investigation by U.S. authorities […]

Comments { 0 }

Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International

Andrew Strauss On March 31, 2014, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International.1 The case will seek to clarify if an analytical method that is implemented by a computer or a link on the Internet is eligible for monopoly protection.2 The case began in 2007, when […]

Comments { 0 }

Standing Up for Static Control: The Supreme Court Defines a New Test for Standing Under the Lanham Act in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Kristin Lockhart In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.,1 ] the Supreme Court resolved the standard for determining who could sue for false advertising or false association under the Lanham Act.2 In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court surprisingly rejected the three disparate tests for standing adopted by the circuits […]

Comments { 0 }

Sandifer et al. v. U.S. Steel Corp.

Dorian Bakogiannis On January 27, the Supreme Court decided Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp.,1 in which the Court considered whether the act of putting on and taking off protective clothing should be equivalent to other types of clothes changing addressed by section §203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).2 The Court held unanimously that […]

Comments { 0 }

When Corporate Fraud Kills: DOJ Settles with Toyota for Record $1.2 Billion, Sets Stage for GM Probe

Jason Bailey In United States v. Toyota Motor Corp., the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (“Agreement”) on March 19, ending a four-year investigation of Toyota with a settlement totaling $1.2 billion, the largest financial penalty against an automotive company in U.S. history.1 Per the Agreement, DOJ will defer the prosecution […]

Comments { 0 }

Alleged LIBOR Manipulation: Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Bank of America Corp.

Brandon Kinnard The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), acting as a receiver for a handful of failed banks, filed a complaint on Friday, March 14th, against some of the largest banks in the world for allegedly manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR).1 Among those being sued are some of the most powerful international […]

Comments { 0 }

Garcia v. Google, Inc.

Caile Morris On February 26, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rendered a decision under the Copyright Act1 that has broad and potentially damaging implications for how actor’s copyright interests are determined in films of all sizes, from low-budget amateur to blockbuster. In Garcia v. Google, Inc.,2 the Court ruled […]

Comments { 0 }