Review Mortgage Lenders

Cendant Mortgage

10637 McClemont Ave, Tujunga, Homes for Sale

cel:818.262.5446 email:800041.lead@cendant.lead Shelley Rizzotti cel:818.516.6409 email:800041.lead@cendant.lead Ewing &amp ...

The Supreme Court - June 2016 #8

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in eight cases last week:

Bank of America Corp. v. Miami , No. 15-1111; Wells Fargo & Co. v. Miami, 15-1112: (1) Whether the term “aggrieved” in the Fair Housing Act imposes a zone-of-interests requirement more stringent than the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III. (2) Whether the City is an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act. (3) Does proximate cause for purposes of the Fair Housing Act require more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies?

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. , No.

Opinion analysis: Justices validate PTO rules for inter partes review

The centerpiece of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act is “inter partes review,” a new procedure for dealing with patents that have already been issued.Instead of waiting for a court to resolve a suit attempting to enforce a patent that has already been issued, a competitor can take the patent straight back to the PTO and institute a proceeding to have the patent cancelled there. The statute creates a new entity in the PTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, to rule on those challenges. Because the process involves administrative review of a patent by agency examiners after the patent has been issued, it is in many ways a hybrid between the examination process (conducted by agency examiners who determine whether the agency should issue a patent) and the judicial process (conducted by judges who decide whether it was proper to issue a patent).

The case presents two distinct questions. The first involves the decision to institute inter partes review. Under the statute, disgruntled competitors can file a petition seeking inter partes review. The board can institute review if it finds “a reasonable likelihood that [the challenger] would prevail.” Of particular relevance to this case, the statute also provides that the decision to institute review is “final and nonappealable.” The Federal Circuit has construed that statute broadly to bar substantially all complaints about the board’s decisions about instituting inter partes review.