Forgot password - Find A Case

Forgot password.

EmailThe email field is required.

Noteworthy Cases

* Thaler v. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022)

In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of AI inventorship. The court denied Thaler’s patent applications that listed an AI system as the inventor, reiterating that the Patent Act expressly provides that “individuals” are inventors, and this can only mean natural persons. Thaler went on to appeal to the Supreme Court, however, cert. was denied.

* Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. (2023)

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled university admissions policies designed to bolster the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority students on American campuses were unconstitutional.

* 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

The US Supreme Court sided with a Christian business owner's injunction, fearing Colorado's potential violation of her First Amendment right to free speech by enforcing a statute against discrimination, as she declined to create gay marriage websites due to religious beliefs defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

* Missouri v. Biden (W.D. La. 2023)

A Louisiana District Court placed a preliminary injunction on the President from communicating with social media platforms in an attempt to limit certain content, in alleged violation of the First Amendment.

* United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc. (2023)

The US Supreme Court has raised the bar on requirements for False Claims Act violations, whereby Courts have generally required that the submissions a person or business made were known, or they should have been known, to be false. SCOTUS has changed the test from what a "reasonable person" would have thought, to what the Defendant actually knew and subjectively believed.

* Groff v. DeJoy (2023)

The US Supreme Court has vacated and remanded an employment law decision to the lower Court, after the Plaintiff's employer (USPS) failed to enable the Plaintiff to observe his sabbath on Sundays. The Court found that USPS was required to show that the accommodation would cause them substantial hardship, and USPS had not met that standard.