Supreme Court Archives

Jan 18, 2019

Nuisance on Central Park West

A Central Park West condominium sued the owner of a first-floor unit and her son for breach of contract and nuisance. The Board wanted to enjoin them from smoking marijuana and making excessive noise in their unit. At the outset, the Supreme Court issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited defendants from smoking marijuana and permitting marijuana smoke and excessively loud noises from infiltrating into the common areas and other units of the condominium. And several months later the Court addressed the application for a permanent injunction. The by-laws prohibited nuisance within the condominium property, as well as improper, offensive, or unlawful… Read more

Jul 31, 2018

Hands-Free Georgia Act and Restriction on Police Power to Obtain Cellphone Data

Hands-Free Cell Phone Usage while Driving

On July 1, 2018, Georgia’s new distracted driving law went into effect. The new law is officially called the “Hands-Free Georgia Act” and it includes important new provisions relating to the use of “wireless telecommunications devices”[i] while driving a motor vehicle in Georgia. The Act seeks to curb the use of cell phones while driving by requiring the use of blue tooth or hands-free calling. As summarized in our article from last month, the long and short of it is that you are not allowed to hold your phone while driving. Many people may be curious to know how the… Read more

Jan 10, 2018

For 2017, The Supreme Court Flips the Two Busiest Patent Venues

For years, the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware have seen the most patent infringement cases filed by far over the several other courts spread throughout the United States. Texas led Delaware for years, based in part on a perceived bias in favor of plaintiffs, particularly small ones – including those disparagingly referred to as “trolls” – when going against large, multi-national defendants. It was also generally accepted as true that the judges in Texas were reluctant to grant motions to transfer. This led to tensions, which boiled over into angry resentment… Read more

Dec 4, 2017

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Solar Power Dispute

The Supreme Court of the United States announced on Friday, December 1 that it would hear an Arizona utility’s appeal of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision[1] ruling that a rooftop solar company’s antitrust lawsuit against the utility may move forward. SolarCity, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tesla Motors, sued Salt River Project, a utility regulated by Arizona, over the utility’s 2015 decision to charge a fee for solar power systems operated by individuals, many of which are installed by SolarCity. In the lawsuit, SolarCity claimed that these fees were implemented to make rooftop solar systems too expensive to… Read more

Nov 3, 2017

SCOTUS to Decide When Statute of Limitations is Tolled After Dismissal of State Law Claims Without Prejudice

“For Whom the Bell Tolls” Litigants often try to resolve their federal and state law claims in a single action. In order for a federal court to hear state law claims, it must invoke supplemental jurisdiction, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1367. As long as the court has subject matter jurisdiction and the state law claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence, the federal court can hear the state law claim. However, the courts have the discretion to decline to hear the state law claim. In such a case, the state law claim is dismissed without prejudice, and… Read more

Jun 19, 2017

THE SLANTS Mark Registrable as Prohibition of “Derogatory” Marks Held Unconstitutional By the Supreme Court

By: Jim Bikoff, Darlene Tzou, and Holly Lance On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ____ (2017), unanimously holding the disparagement clause in the Lanham Act unconstitutional on the ground that it violates the First Amendment. This decision upends over 70 years of practice under Lanham Act § 2(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)). The case will likely have an immediate effect on other pending “derogatory” mark cases, including Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90091 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2015) (the “Redskins” case) and may signal… Read more

May 18, 2016

Promising News For Software Patents: Federal Circuit Upholds Patent-Eligibility For Computer-Implemented Invention

By: Greg Kirsch, SGR Partner, Head of Intellectual Property Department The past two years have been challenging times for developers of software and other computer-implemented technology seeking to patent their inventions. In June 2014, the US Supreme Court handed down its Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision, which created new stricter rules for determining whether such inventions may be deemed eligible for patent protection (regardless of whether they are novel and non-obvious). The new rules comprise a two-step inquiry: (1) determine if a patent-ineligible concept is claimed (law of nature, natural phenomena or abstract idea), and if so, (2) determine… Read more

Jan 21, 2016

Will the Supreme Court Clarify the Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees under §505 of the Copyright Act?

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to address the standards to be applied in awarding attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C.§505 of the Copyright Act. At issue is whether Supap Kirtsaeng, the prevailing defendant in a copyright lawsuit, should be awarded his attorney’s fees. This is Mr. Kirtsaeng’s second trip to the Supreme Court. The Court held in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2013) that under the “first sale” doctrine (codified at 17 U.S.C. §109(a)), Kirtsaeng, as the lawful owner of the particular physical copy of the textbook purchased abroad, was permitted to resell that… Read more

Jun 29, 2011

Supreme Court Rejects Plaintiffs’ Climate Change Suit

In what will likely become a pivotal moment in the nation’s regulations of greenhouse gases, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the rights of six states, New York City and three private land trusts, holding that there is no federal common law of public nuisance for claims of injuries caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases. American Electric Power Co., et al. v. Connecticut, et al., No. 10-174 (“AEP”). The plaintiffs in AEP filed suit in July 2004 against six major electric utilities arguing they had suffered climate change-related injuries caused by the utilities’ emissions, which emissions they argued constituted… Read more