Supreme Court puts new rules on damage awards
338697
In a smoking suit, a jury wrongly punished Big Tobacco for injuries to nonlitigants, the justices ruled.
713133
The Supreme Court on Tuesday limited workers' ability to sue employers for pay discrimination that results from decisions made years earlier.
665557
The US Supreme Court, siding with the financial services industry, tightened the limits on damages consumers can get from companies that violate the federal Truth in Lending Act.
415486
Individuals who use the Internet  to distribute information from another source may not be held  to account if the material is considered defamatory, the  California Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a reversal of a  lower court decision.
611642
Opposing sides say the ruling on an upcoming Supreme Court case might encourage dangerous driving - or increased use of force.
611698
Israel's Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that some Palestinians injured by the Israeli military may sue the state for compensation, a decision hailed as groundbreaking by an Arab civil rights group but condemned by right-wing Israeli lawmakers as damaging to the country's security.
150644
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina  - Argentina's Supreme  Court ruled for the first time on Thursday that someone who  fled the country fearing political persecution during the 1970s  "dirty war" should receive damages from the government.
160865
In a divided ruling, justices strike down portions of federal guidelines, forcing a redrawing of the sentencing system.
393099
(InfoWorld) - The House Committee on the Judiciary approved far-reaching legislation to reform the nation's patent system Wednesday. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 largely reflects the IT sector's lobbying effort to curtail lengthy, expensive patent infringement lawsuits, but Wednesday's committee deliberations centered on finding compromises acceptable to opponents â namely the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, manufacturers, and large research universities â so that the bill could win approval. Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., described the current patent system as inefficient, bogged down by inappropriate litigation rules, unreliably funded, and resulting in patents of "questionable quality."Â  The bill would make it harder to secure a patent and easier for rivals to challenge one, and it would change how courts determine an infringed patent's value.Â  However, the version approved by the committee does not go as far on any of those fronts as the IT industry would have liked, and continued negotiations are underway. "Needless to say, our journey has been rugged," Conyers said, urging members to pass the bill out of committee. "We meet here today with the realization that we haven't finished the discussions. The meetings have gone on almost endlessly in some people's minds because compromises are necessary." The proposal Conyers brought forward addresses two of the most controversial provisions under discussion:Â  How courts determine the damages paid to patent holders by infringers and whether challengers are allowed to review patents after they've been granted. Assessing damages Calling the damages provision the most complex issue, the bill's original sponsor, Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., said that allowing judges to determine damages by assessing the value of a component within an invention that was infringed â rather than the value of the entire product â would correct "bizarre and wrong-headed trends" in patent litigation.Â  Originally, the bill mandated that courts calculate damages by such an "apportionment" formula, which the IT industry largely supported.Â  However, the committee agreed to give judges the discretion to decide whether damages should be determined by apportionment, by the market value of the entire invention, or by other means.Â  Several committee members, including Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Fla., said they would like to see further refinement of the provision because Congress canât predict the consequences of the apportionment analysis. "It would be important to give the court flexibility," Feeney said, adding that the bill could unduly diminish the value of some patents.Â  "We are in a whole new world of uncertainty." Promoting higher quality patents In a move that would make it easier to challenge a patent without going through costly litigation â and simultaneously make it harder for inventors to secure patents â the bill allows the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to review patents after they've been granted. In response to concerns raised by research universities and others, however, it limits the timeframe for such review. The legislation also makes it harder to secure a patent by giving third parties more opportunity to submit information to the PTO during the application process to ensure that only innovative inventions are patented.Â  The bill moves the patent system from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-to-file" system, but in another nod to large universities, the committee clarified a grace period on filing patent applications for inventors who disclose or publish inventions in advance of seeking a patent. Discouraging excessive litigation In an attempt to reduce abuses in patent litigation and discourage frivolous cases from being filed and non-frivolous cases from being unnecessarily drawn out, two other provisions were heavily debated and amended before the bill was approved: The ability of alleged infringers to charge patent holders with "inequitable conduct," and the patent holder's flexibility in selecting a venue for a case. Currently, alleged infringers can argue that a patent is invalid on the grounds that the holder did not sufficiently disclose information about an invention and thereby engaged in inequitable conduct. The often-used tactic is widely seen as a way to divert attention from the merits of the patent itself.Â  The bill narrows the circumstances under which this defense could be used and gives courts a range of options to remedy such conduct when it is found.Â  In an effort to curb forum shopping, the bill restricts patent holders to four options when choosing a venue to file a suit in.Â  However, the bill provides leeway for individual inventors, universities, and "micro entities" to bring patent cases where they reside. Noting that members of Congress cannot predict the consequences of the sweeping reform legislation, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, proposed requiring the PTO to conduct periodic studies of the impact of the most controversial provisions.Â  The proposal was enthusiastically approved. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to continue deliberating its version of the patent reform legislation Thursday.
106583
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a case that could make it easier for consumers to hold insurers, banks and other businesses liable for failing to notify them about adverse information in credit reports.
578161
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday the federal truth in lending law caps damages at $1,000 for violations of its requirements for consumer loans secured by personal property, such as a motor vehicle.
63569
The US Supreme Court agreed Friday to consider a case likely to have a significant impact on the music, video and electronics industries.
728388
The US Supreme Court heard argument Monday on whether plaintiff who win big awards are required to list attorneys&#39; fees as income on tax returns.
611133
The Louisiana Supreme Court on Friday upheld two new state laws giving policyholders more time to sue their insurers or file claims over damage from hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
277649
Investors lost another round at the Supreme Court yesterday when the justices imposed a strict standard for shareholder lawsuits seeking to recover losses from companies accused of fraudulent business practices.
10883
Hoping to jumpstart workers&#39; compensation reforms, the Schwarzenegger administration yesterday introduced a new set of regulations to change how doctors evaluate injured workers and how much money the workers receive.
696815
The Supreme Court overturned a five-figure damage award for an auto dealer's alleged loan scam, ruling that a federal appeals court had wrongly interpreted a federal fair-credit law when it upheld the award last year.