Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Again Tightens Jurisdictional Requirements for Claims Against Out-of-State Defendants

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court announced important constitutional limitations on state courts’ ability to exercise specific jurisdiction over nonresidents’ claims against out-of-state defendants. The Court’s nearly unanimous decision in Bristol-Myers v. Superior Court has potentially far-reaching implications for companies facing claims brought by nonresident and resident plaintiffs in states in which those companies are neither incorporated nor maintain their principal place of business.… Continue Reading

Bristol-Myers Personal Jurisdiction Decision Makes Its Way to the U.S. Supreme Court

A review of the parties’ briefing on Bristol-Myers’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court highlights significant questions for companies in the retail industry should the U.S. Supreme Court deny the petition and thereby allow the decision to stand as controlling law in California. … Continue Reading

CA Supreme Court Raises Questions About Post-Daimler Bounds of Specific Jurisdiction

On August 29, 2016, in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court left many retailers wondering what the 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman may mean for the exercise of specific jurisdiction in cases involving nationwide courses of business conduct affecting both resident and nonresident plaintiffs. … Continue Reading

The New Wave of Consumer Class Action Targeting Retailers: What is the TCCWNA?

TCCWNA. The very acronym evokes head scratches and sighs of angst and frustration among many in the retail industry. The New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act was passed in 1981 to protect consumers from allegedly deceptive practices in consumer contracts, warranties, notices and signs. Continue reading for an in-depth view of the TCCWNA and what retailers can do to minimize risk. … Continue Reading

Will Spokeo Undermine CAFA?

As we previously reported, the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo v. Robins has been nearly universally lauded by defense counsel as a new bulwark against class actions alleging technical violations of federal statutes. But Spokeo also poses a significant threat to defendants by defeating their ability to remove exactly the types of cases that defendants most want in federal court.… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Issues Decision in Spokeo v. Robins; Must Allege Concrete Injury For Technical Statutory Violations

On May 16, 2016, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. In an opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court held that a plaintiff must do more than plead a statutory procedural violation to establish standing; to plead an injury in fact, a plaintiff also must allege a harm that is both “concrete” and “particularized.” … Continue Reading

2016 Conflict Minerals Form Due

The due date for the next Form SD filing for those public companies required to report to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on the inclusion of conflict minerals in their products is May 31, 2016. This blog post gives a background of the litigation revolving around the SEC conflict minerals rule. … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Denies Review of Second Circuit Decision Compelling Court or DOL Approval of FLSA Settlements

As reported on the Hunton Employment and Labor Law Blog, the United States Supreme Court has denied a restaurant manager’s petition seeking review of whether parties may stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), or whether judicial or Department of Labor (“DOL”) approval is … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Upholds Longstanding Precedent that Accrual of Patent Royalties Ends with Expiry of Patent

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, No. 13-720 (June 22, 2015), upheld the longstanding precedent provided by Brulotte v. Thys Co, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), which stated that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” Id. at 32. … Continue Reading

General Liability Insurers in Pennsylvania Required to Defend Product Liability Claims

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected a liability insurer’s attempt to overturn a Superior Court decision holding that insurers must defend product liability claims. See Indalex v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., No. 126 WAL 2014 (Pa. Sept. 18, 2014). The decision confirms that loss arising from a defective product may constitute … Continue Reading

Supreme Count Term in Review: Patent Cases

The Supreme Court during its 2013–14 term decided on six patent cases, the last on June 19, 2014. These cases will have significant consequences for companies as they work to advance their strategy for protecting their intellectual property. The attached client alert provides highlights of each case. Read the full client alert.… Continue Reading