To refine your search through our archives use our Advanced Search
Accused infringers might have a greater incentive to save their patent invalidity arguments for federal court or International Trade Commission litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court renders its decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Matal, U.S., No. 16-969.
Although it only affirms what has been said before, a September decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is nevertheless surging in popularity among inventors and their attorneys because it reminds the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the standard of “broadest reasonable interpretation” for evaluating patent applications does not mean “broadest possible interpretation.”
Gov. Eric Holcomb issued six pardons on Nov. 20 — twice the absolutions granted by his predecessor, now-Vice President Mike Pence, during his four years as governor.
In the wake of hefty attorney fees and an onslaught of what was viewed as unnecessary litigation filed by “patent trolls,” Congress authorized the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to begin conducting inter partes reviews of patent challenges in 2012 as an efficient and cost-effective alternative to patent litigation. But now, the popular IPR process could be in jeopardy as the United States Supreme Court considers whether federal law requires patent challenges to be adjudicated in court.
On the heels of criticism from a national organization and multiple lawsuits challenging Indiana’s public defender system, Indiana lawmakers and legal stakeholders are beginning to review the state’s public defense mechanisms to identify strategies for improvement.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Friday:
United States of America v. John Foster
17-1703
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Affirms John Foster’s sentence to a mandatory minimum of 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Finds Indiana’s Class B felony burglary qualifies as a violent felony under the ACCA.
In the second appeal stemming from a cancelled contract between Lake County and a delinquent tax collector, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the county based on its precedent from a previous 2015 decision.
The Department of Correction’s religious director was entitled to qualified immunity on a complaint alleging he violated two Jewish plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights by failing to delay their transfer to a facility that did not offer Jewish group worship services, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday.
After determining an inventory search of a man’s car was actually investigatory in nature, the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned Monday the man’s conviction of possession of a handgun without a license. The court also threw out the man’s conviction of driving with a suspended license for lack of evidence.
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has filed a motion to intervene in a federal immigration case after a district court judge entered a consent decree barring the Marion County Sheriff’s Office from detaining illegal immigrants for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement without a warrant or probable cause. The decree implicates the state’s ability to enforce its own statutes, Hill argued, thus creating the need for the state to intervene and file an appeal.
An Indiana man sentenced to 15 years under the Armed Criminal Career Act has lost his appeal of his sentence after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined he met the requirements of three prior violent offenses to warrant the Act’s mandatory 15-year minimum.
Nearly four months after a district court judge struck down portions of Indiana’s civil forfeiture statute as unconstitutional, the effects of that decision are now being felt in Indiana’s trial courts, where a judge has ordered the return of seized property pursuant to the district court’s ruling.
After a granting petitions for rehearing and clarifying its instructions to the trial court on remand, the Indiana Court of Appeals declined Monday to reconsider its original October opinion in an appeal stemming from a series of eight robbery-related charges.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld the sentences imposed on a man convicted of driving while intoxicated and with a forfeited license, finding the man failed to prove his sentence was inappropriate.
A northern Indiana county prosecutor says he doesn’t know why hundreds of rape kits were not sent away to a crime lab for testing.
A Michigan man has been sentenced to 7-1/2 years in prison for a fraud scheme in which authorities say he stole nearly $1 million from people investing in his Indianapolis-based business.
A fraternity at the University of Southern Indiana is appealing the school’s decision to withdraw recognition of the organization’s chapter following hazing and alcohol violations.
As a statewide task force begins the process of analyzing deficiencies in Indiana’s indigent defense services, a group of Johnson County criminal defendants sought to keep alive a lawsuit against their court-appointed public defenders. The defendants Thursday urged the Indiana Court of Appeals to reinstate their suit alleging ineffective assistance of counsel before their cases have concluded.
The following 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion was posted after IL deadline Thursday:
United States of America v. John D. Gries and James McCullars
15-2432, -2447
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Judge Sarah Evans Barker.
Criminal. Grants petition for panel rehearing for the purpose of withdrawing and replacing the original Sept. 20 opinion. Finds the original opinion contained an error in remand instructions. Denies the petition for rehearing in all other respects, and denies the petition for rehearing en banc.
The Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a nearly $100,000 judgment in favor of a black man who claims he was subject to discriminatory practices by his former employer after ruling the Indiana Civil Rights Commission’s finding in favor of the man was not invalid or void.