The federal Lanham Act provides that a plaintiff who prevails in a trademark infringement suit is sometimes entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” derived from the infringement. But does the “defendant’s profits” look only to the named defendant, or can
Latest from Supreme Court Update - Page 2
Glossip v. Oklahoma (No. 22-7466)
In Glossip v. Oklahoma (No. 22-7466), the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Petitioner Richard Glossip, an inmate on Oklahoma’s death row for over twenty years who has steadfastly maintained his innocence. By a vote of 5-3 (with
Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127)
In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Heath (No. 23-1127), the Supreme Court addressed whether the Government “provide[s]” money to a program that subsidizes telecommunications services for schools and libraries through a surcharge imposed on telecom carriers,
Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (No. 23-971)
In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., (No. 23-971), the Supreme Court finally settled a question lawyers have been debating from time immemorial: Is a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of a complaint without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621)
In Lackey v. Stinnie (No. 23-621), the Supreme Court addressed a question that had divided the circuits: If a plaintiff sues under Section 1983 and obtains a preliminary injunction, but subsequent events moot the suit before the district court
Republic of Hungary v. Simon (No. 23-867)
In Republic of Hungary v. Simon (No. 23-867), the Supreme Court addressed, for the second time, whether Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust have alleged enough facts to pierce the sovereign immunity of Hungary and its state-owned railway. And
TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (No. 24-656)
Well, that was fast. In the blink of an eye last week, TikTok—the social-media platform used by over 170 million Americans but owned by a foreign company with connections to the Chinese government—went dark in the United States. This followed
Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (No. 23-677)
In Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (No. 23-677), the Supreme Court resolved a jurisdictional dog fight over dog food. If a plaintiff files a complaint containing state- and federal-law claims, the complaint can ordinarily be removed to federal
E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (No. 23-217)
In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (No 23-217), the Supreme Court addressed a circuit split as to the evidentiary standard that applies when an employer argues that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair
NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:Or Fonder AB (No. 23-970)
A few months ago, securities litigators viewed OT24 with excitement: The Court had granted cert in not one, but two cases addressing when a complaint adequately alleged securities fraud under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. No more: A few