Patent litigation reform has been on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee agenda, with the recent reintroduction of legislation seeking to address patent litigation abuses and a hearing examining recent U.S. Supreme Court cases that have imposed some reforms that may, or may not, curtail the need for further legislative efforts. In February, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Rep. Rob Goodlatte reintroduced the bi-partisan Innovation Act, H.R. 9, which is the same in substance as the previous Innovation Act, H.R. 3309 that passed the House in December 2013, but ultimately ...
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON DOJ OVERSIGHT: The House Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing regarding oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice during which Attorney General Eric Holder testified. A webcast of the hearing and testimony can be found here. Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 28 2014
HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE RECONSIDERS CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY: Last week, the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law held its hearing to address Bankruptcy reform - Exploring Chapter 11 Reform: Corporate and Financial Institution Insolvencies; Treatment of Derivatives. The witness list and testimony are available here. Posted by Tony Lathrop, Apr. 4, 2014.
About MVA Litigation Blog
Companies are operating in an increasingly globalized and regulated business environment, facing ever-changing and complicated litigation and regulatory challenges. We provide cutting-edge information regarding developments in federal, North Carolina State, and international litigation, as well as in arbitration, regulatory enforcement, and related business practices.
MVA Litigation Blog Updates
- The FTC Votes to Ban Non-Compete Agreements
- In Loper Bright and Relentless, Supreme Court returns to high-stakes question of viability of the Chevron doctrine
- MVA team files amicus brief in the Supreme Court on the future of the Chevron Doctrine
- Tanisha Palvia and Alli Davidson co-author article: SCOTUS clarifies intent requirement for False Claims Act cases