Jones Day | USA | 22 Mar 2019
We recently posted about the panel opinion in Amazon.com v. Uniloc, a final written decision demonstrating how the PTAB has given heightened scrutiny…
Baker & Hostetler LLP | USA | 7 Mar 2019
This spring, fans of HBO’s “Game of Thrones” series will finally see who will win the Iron Throne in the last season of the popular show. At the same…
Holland & Knight LLP | USA | 25 Feb 2019
Based on a new review of nonprofit hospitals by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a congressional investigation…
Ogletree Deakins | USA | 13 Feb 2019
The hiring process can be one of the most stressful steps of any employment relationship. As the employer, you are opening your doors to somebody who…
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP | USA | 3 Jan 2019
As we discussed in our October 2018 article in Property Management Quarterly, the 2015 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert held that…
Venable LLP | USA | 7 Nov 2018
Whether merchants can charge consumers who pay with a credit card more and how that increase in price is described has been the subject of extensive…
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP | USA | 9 Oct 2018
In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert establishing that the town’s sign code violated the First…
Keller and Heckman LLP | USA | 26 Sep 2018
On September 11, 2018, Nicopure Labs, LLC and the Right to be Smoke-Free Coalition (the “Appellants”) appeared for oral argument before a three-judge…
Sidley Austin LLP | USA | 26 Jan 2018
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that California's statute prohibiting credit card surcharges violated the First Amendment as applied to the proposed surcharge practices of the merchant-plaintiffs. The Ninth Circuit used the same reasoning as a recent Supreme Court case to hold that California's surcharge ban regulated speech rather than conduct, therefore posing......
Venable LLP | USA | 15 Jan 2018
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that although the mark FUCT comprises immoral or scandalous matter, it is still federally registrable because the bar on registering such marks set out in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech, thereby violating the First Amendment.