

    <?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="../App_Themes/Default/rss.css" ?> 
      <rss version="2.0">    
         <channel>
            <title><![CDATA[DRIToday.org: ]]></title>
            <link>http://www.dritoday.org/</link>
            <description>DRI Today -- The Court Reporter</description>
            <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Court Hears Argument in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Ann M. Byrd and Laura Vogel, DLA Piper]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday, April 16, 2012, regarding  whether, as a result of unique industry circumstances, pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=174]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/25/2012 1:49:21 PM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Court Rules that Private Attorneys May Assert Qualified Immunity as a Defense]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Scott Gibson, Gibson Ferrin]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[Private attorneys representing government entities are entitled to assert qualified immunity as a defense to civil rights claims, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday in Filarsky v. Delia.  The Court’s decision allows private attorneys to rely on the same protections that their public counterparts use.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=173]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/19/2012 8:59:44 AM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Supreme Court Decides Kappos v. Hyatt]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Joseph Carnicella, Picadio, Sneath, Miller & Norton, P.C.]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[In Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), decided on April 18, 2012, a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit decision that (a) a patent applicant faces no limitations on their ability to introduce new evidence in a Section 145 (35 U.S.C. § 145) proceeding beyond those already in place in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (b) the district court must take de novo factual findings of both new evidence presented on a disputed question of fact and the administrative record before the PTO, and (c) the district court may consider what weight to afford any new evidence taking into account whether the applicant had an opportunity to present the new evidence before the PTO.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=172]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/19/2012 8:54:05 AM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Court Sides with Generic Manufacturers in Caraco]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Jennifer Fuerch, DLA Piper]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[In Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., v. Novo Nordisk A/S, decided April 17, 2012, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision, that a generic manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of 21 U.S.C. §355 to force a brand manufacturer to correct a patent “use code” listed in the Orange Book that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent to cover an unpatented method of using a drug.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=171]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/18/2012 3:07:28 PM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[No Pecuniary Harm, No Foul - FAA v. Cooper]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Tiffany Reese Clark, Ulmer & Berne LLP]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[In FAA v. Cooper, decided on March 28, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the federal Privacy Act does not authorize recovery of emotional distress damages.  The Privacy Act was enacted in 1974 to provide safeguards against the disclosure of confidential records between government agencies. Recognizing that a government waiver of sovereign immunity must be unambiguous, the Supreme Court held the Act could not unambiguously be read to authorize non-pecuniary damages.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=170]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/4/2012 5:23:11 PM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Constitutionality of Individual Mandate Will Be a Closer Vote Than Originally Thought]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Robert R. Pohls and Payam Saljoughian, Pohls & Associates]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[The second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act addressed whether Congress had power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to enact the individual mandate.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=169]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/4/2012 5:11:11 PM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Supreme Court Likely to Move Forward on Affordable Care Act Cases]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Robert R. Pohls and Payam Saljoughian]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[The first day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act addressed whether thechallenges to the Affordable Care Act are barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, a statute which provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax may be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). If the Court concludes that the Tax Anti-Injunction Actdoes not apply, the cases challenging the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality may proceed.  Otherwise, the Court may be required to defer its ruling on those issues until 2014.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=168]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[4/4/2012 5:04:49 PM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Medicaid Expansion May Fall If Supreme Court Determines it Coerces States]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Robert R. Pohls and Payam Saljoughian, Pohls & Associates]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[The final session of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act focused on whether the expansion of Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act violates State Sovereignty.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=167]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[3/30/2012 9:03:49 AM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate May Affect the Fate of the Entire Affordable Care Act]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Robert R. Pohls and Payam Saljoughian, Pohls & Associates]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[The final day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act focused on two separate issues. The first issue was argued in the morning and picked up on yesterday’s discussion regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=166]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[3/30/2012 8:34:00 AM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
      <item>
         <title><![CDATA[Continuing its Trend Away from Artificially Restrictive Views of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC Unanimously Finds Concurrent State and Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act]]></title>
         <author><![CDATA[Dean T. Barnhard, Barnes & Thornburg LLP]]></author>
         <description><![CDATA[On January 18, 2012, a unanimous Supreme Court decided an important federal subject matter jurisdiction case which further evidences its now eight-year trend away from historical but artificially cramped understandings of such subject matter jurisdiction.]]></description>
         <link><![CDATA[http://dritoday.org/commentary.aspx?ID=165]]></link>
         <pubDate><![CDATA[3/27/2012 2:11:27 PM]]></pubDate>
      </item>
   
         </channel>
      </rss>  
   

