Judiciary Watch

Senate confirms 2 to 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Senate yesterday confirmed Paul J. Watford to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  Watford is a 1994 graduate of U.C.L.A. School of Law.  Prior to taking the bench, he was a partner with Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, where his practice focused mainly on appellate litigation.  From 1997 to 2000, Watford was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Central District of California. He clerked for Hon. Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, and for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Earlier this month, the Senate confirmed Jacqueline H. Nguyen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.  Nguyen was a District Judge for the Central District of California since 2009 and sat on the Superior Court of California from 2002 to 2009.  Prior to taking the bench, Nguyen was with the U.S. Attorneys office for 7 years and in private practice from 1991 to 1994.

Senate confirms Tharp to federal bench in Chicago

The Senate yesterday voted 86 to 1 to confirm John J. Tharp to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  Tharp is a 1990 graduate of Northwestern Univ. School of Law and a former Assistant U.S. Attorney.  Most recently, he was a partner with Mayer Brown and co-chair of the firm’s Securities Litigation and Enforcement Practice.    Tharp was previously nominated to fill a judicial vacancy in the N.D. Ill. in 2008, but the Senate did not act on the nomination before the change in administration.  Tharp's confirmation brings the total vacancies in the Northern District of Illinois to three.

Senate confirms Lee, Baker to federal bench

The Senate this week confirmed John Z. Lee to the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and Kristine G. Baker to the Eastern District of Arkansas.  Lee has been a partner with Freeborn & Peters in Chicago since 1999.  He graduated Harvard Law School cum laude in 1992.  Baker has been a partner with Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow since 2002 and clerked for Hon. Susan Webber Wright from 1996 to 1998.  Baker graduated the Univ. of Arkansas School of Law in 1996.

Patent Applicant May Introduce New Evidence in Suit Challenging PTO’s Denial of Patent Claims

In a suit to challenge the denial of patent claims, there are there are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence beyond those provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (Kappos v. Hyatt, April 18, 2012, Thomas, C.). If new evidence is presented on a disputed question of fact, the federal district court must make de novo factual findings that take account of both the new evidence and the administrative record before the Patent and Trademark Office, the Court also held.

 

Supreme Court ruling favors generic drug maker

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that generic drug makers can sue their brand-name rivals for overstating the reach of their patents.  Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories Inc., a generic-drug company sought permission from the Food and Drug Administration to market a generic version of Novo Nordisk AS’s Prandin diabetes drug. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that Caraco could, in a patent infringement action brought against it by the manufacturers of the brand-name version of the drug (“Novo”), assert a counterclaim seeking an order requiring Novo to correct the drug’s FDA Orange Book “use code” because the drug’s method-of-use patent did not claim two of the three approved uses for the drug asserted in the use code. (Caraco Pharamaceutical Laboratories Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, April 17, 2012, Kagan, E.).

 

 

No Emotional-Harm Damages for HIV+ Pilot Whose License Was Revoked

A pilot with HIV who sued the U.S. government under the Privacy Act of 1974 for damages he allegedly had sustained as the result of information-sharing between the Social Security Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to his medical condition was not entitled to monetary compensation for mental and emotional harm, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 opinion released today (Justice Kagan took no part in the proceedings). Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion.

Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissenters, cautioned that “notably absent from the Privacy Act is any provision so much as hinting that ‘actual damages’ should be limited to economic loss.” Adopting a reading of “actual damages” that permits recovery for pecuniary loss alone creates a disconnect between the Act’s substantive and remedial provisions and allows a swath of governmental violations to go unremedied, Sotomayor said, asserting that reading “actual damages” to permit recovery for any injury established by competent evidence in the record—pecuniary or not—best effectuates the statute’s basic purpose of redressing and deterring violations of privacy interests. The Court should not, as a self-constituted guardian of the Treasury import immunity back into a statute designed to limit it, she maintained. Fed. Aviation Admin. v. Cooper (USSCt) March 28, 2012

Arguments on health care law come to close

On the third and final day of argument on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, the justices seemed divided once again on the questions before them. What will happen to the rest of the law if the court strikes down the individual mandate provision? And is the law’s expansion of Medicaid constitutional? The three hours of arguments focused mainly on the practical rather than theoretical implications of their decision.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that “the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that striking down the whole law would be overreaching, and that Congress was better equipped to fix the law. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued leaving only parts of the law in place would be overreaching and place too large a burden on insurance companies.

Skeptical questions in argument over healthcare law

After a day of tough questioning from the Court’s four more conservative justices, many Court watchers are predicting a 5-4 decision striking down all or part of the Affordable Care Act.  Tuesday’s argument lasted two hours, twice the usual length, in a packed courtroom.  The Court appears split along ideological lines, with Justice Kennedy, the swing vote, appearing skeptical about the law’s individual mandate requiring most Americans to buy health insurance.  Today the court will address the question of whether the rest of the law should stand if the individual mandate is struck down, as well as the law’s expansion of Medicaid.  A ruling from the Court is expected as early as June.

Supreme Court hears arguments in health care case

The Supreme Court this week began three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act.  On Monday, the Court considered the issue of whether or not they have jurisdiction to consider the law now, or have to wait until 2015 when the first taxpayer refuses to buy health insurance and must pay a penalty to the IRS.  The Justices seemed to reject arguments that the penalty is a tax, or in any way prevents them from proceeding to the merits of the case.  The Court was set to hear arguments on the central issue in the challenge to the health care law, the individual mandate, on Tuesday.  

Senate confirms Jordan to 11th Circuit

The Senate on Wednesday confirmed Adalberto Jordan to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in a 94 to 5 vote.  Jordan, who has been on District Court in Miami since 1999, is a graduate of the Univ. of Miami School of Law, where he is currently an adjunct professor.  Prior to taking the bench, Jordan was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and in private practice in Miami.  Jordan got high marks from attorneys interviewed for the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.  They said he is a brilliant jurist who is courteous, professional and fair.  "His legal ability is exceptional. He is bright. He seems fascinated by the law. To me, he would be the most likely to be promoted to the appellate level." "His demeanor is second to none. He is great with lawyers. You only get treated badly if you deserve it."