Supreme Court rules in immigration, patent cases
Court Alerts
The US Supreme Court handed down decisions in three cases Tuesday, including US v. Resendiz-Ponce, where the Court upheld the conviction of Juan Resendiz-Ponce on charges of attempting to re-enter the United States illegally from Mexico after being deported. The indictment in the case did not allege an overt act showing that he tried to enter the US, but the Supreme Court ruled that the indictment was not defective as it "need not specifically allege a particular overt act or any other 'component part' of the offense." Read the Court's opinion per Justice Stevens, along with a dissent from Justice Scalia.
In MedImmune v. Genentech, the Court ruled that MedImmune did not need to breach its patent license agreement with Genentech before challenging the patent's validity, overturning a Federal Circuit decision.
In a statement Tuesday the industry group Coalition for Patent Fairness said that the unanimous ruling demonstrated yet again that "the patent system needs to be modernized. Fair patent protections deliver innovative products for consumers and strengthen America's international competitiveness. This ruling is a positive step, but it is clear that a legislative remedy is needed to strengthen our overall patent system."
Finally, the Court remanded Burton v. Stewart back to the lower courts, saying that Lonnie Lee Burton's appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court had agreed to hear the case to determine whether Blakely v. Washington, the 2004 decision which limited judges' discretion in criminal sentencing, "announced a new rule and, if so, whether it applies retroactively on collateral review." Despite hearing oral arguments on those issues, the Court ruled that Burton never complied with the jurisdictional requirements of 28 US 2244(b).
Related listings
-
Micron settles DRAM class-action lawsuit
Court Alerts 01/09/2007Micron Technology Inc. (MU.N: Quote, Profile , Research) said on Tuesday it has settled a class-action lawsuit that will reduce its previously announced first-quarter profit by up to $80 million.The lawsuit, which followed a 2002 U.S. Justice Departm...
-
Intuitive Surgical faces patent lawsuit from Cal Tech
Court Alerts 01/09/2007Intuitive Surgical Inc. said Monday the California Institute of Technology filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based medical equipment manufacture...
-
Plaintiff in Halliburton Case to Send Attorneys Packing
Court Alerts 01/08/2007This is an update concerning the Halliburton Securities Litigation. Truth in Corporate Justice LLC (“TCJâ€) is Special Counsel to the AMS Fund, Inc. on Securities Matters. It speaks only on behalf of itself or for its client, the Lead Plaintiff, w...
Is Now the Time to Really Call a Special Education Lawyer?
IDEA, FAPE, CHILD FIND and IEPs: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) guarantees all children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). FAPE starts with a school’s responsibility to identify that a child has a disability (Child Find) and create an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to suit the needs of the child.
Forte Law Group is one of only a very few law firms within the state of Connecticut that is dedicated to exclusively representing families and children with special needs.
Parents need to be persistent, dedicated and above all else aware of the many services and accommodations that their child is entitled to under the law. As early as this point within your child’s special education, many parents will often find themselves in the situation asking, “is now the time to really call a special education lawyer?” Here are a few things to consider when asking yourself that question.