Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015), [1] is a controversial decision of the US Federal Circuit in which the court applied the Mayo v. . Prometheus test [2] to invalidate on the basis of subject matter eligibility a patent said to "solve ... a very practical problem accessing fetal DNA without creating a major health risk for the unborn chil
A petition for a rehearing en banc was denied on June 12, 2008 by a vote of 7–6. [15] Judge José Cabranes and Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote opinions in dissent from the denial of rehearing, urging review by the Supreme Court. [16] [17] The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments on April 22, 2009. [18]
Several judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took this opportunity to collaborate on a dissenting opinion against the decisions to deny a rehearing en banc. [27] Circuit Judge Andrew Kleinfeld authored the legal opinion for this dissent, arguing that imposing criminal liability in this case would deter others from useful careers in the ...
Delaware Gov. John Carney has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to rehear en banc the case that struck provisions of the Delaware Constitution mandating balance between the ...
Oct. 23—NextDecade, parent company of Rio Grande LNG, has filed a petition for a rehearing on the D.C. Circuit Court's Aug. 6 ruling that reversed federal authorization of the LNG export ...
The day after the denial of stay, the 9th Circuit ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs on whether the motion should be reheard en banc. [59] The order was issued at the request of an unidentified judge of the Ninth Circuit to be voted on by all 25 active judges (though, if successful, a rehearing would be by a panel of 11 judges).
Rehearing en banc denied: Court membership; Judges sitting: ... Floyd Robert Gibson (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc), joined by Jesse Smith Henley: Dissent:
Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by the state's constitution and statutory law.The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses.