Faculty in the News

Faculty News

  • Law360 Quotes Prof. Cotter on Justice Stevens’s Contributions to IP Law

    July 18, 2019

    A Law360 story titled “Justice Stevens Sought Careful Limits on Reach of IP Law” quotes Professor Tom Cotter on the late Justice’s contributions to IP case law. Cotter stated that Justice Stevens’s copyright and patent opinions “were consistent with an overall view that we should construe the IP statutes somewhat narrowly, and that there are significant risks of monopolization.” Cotter also stated that “[w]hether you ultimately agreed with his views or not, you knew that it would be [a] scholarly, well-thought-out, well-reasoned opinion. … That was the sort of lawyer and justice that he was.” Cotter shared some further observations on his blog earlier this week, after hearing of the Justice’s death.

  • Prof. Hickman’s Amicus Brief in Tax Case Published, Reported by Tax Notes

    July 17, 2019

    An amicus brief filed by Prof. Kristin Hickman in support of rehearing en banc in CIC Services LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, 925 F.3d 247 (6th Cir. 2019), was published and commentary on the brief was reported by Tax Notes (subscription required). The case concerns whether the tax code’s Anti-Injunction Act precludes pre-enforcement judicial review of Administrative Procedure Act challenges to tax regulatory actions. A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit divided over that issue, with both the majority and dissenting opinions citing and addressing arguments raised by Prof. Hickman and Gerald Kerska ’17 in Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 Va. L. Rev. 1683 (2017). Prof. Hickman drew extensively from the article in encouraging the court to order rehearing en banc.

  • Prof. Kitrosser Discusses Census Case on The Rick Ungar Show

    July 10, 2019

    Professor Kitrosser spoke to Rick Ungar of the nationally syndicated radio program, “The Rick Ungar Show,” about the ongoing census litigation. In the broadcasted conversation, Professor Kitrosser weighed in on various matters including the reasoning in the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2019 opinion in the case, possible Justice Department legal theories on remand, and the Justice Department’s recent request to switch attorneys in the litigation. Professor Kitrosser’s segment begins at the 19 minute mark.

  • Law360 Quotes Prof. Cotter on EU Mastercard Antitrust Case

    July 8, 2019

    Professor Thomas Cotter was quoted by Law360 on the European Commission’s decision earlier this year to fine MasterCard €570 million for its practice, since discontinued, of forbidding merchants in EU member states from shopping for lower rates offered by banks in other EU states outside their home country. Cotter stated that the case provides “insight into how the commission sets penalties” and into how it “understands what sort of conditions will have an anti-competitive impact.”

  • Prof. Hickman Cited In U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

    June 26, 2019

    Prof. Kristin Hickman’s essay, The Chevronization of Auer, 103 Minn. L. Rev. Headnotes 103 (2019), co-authored with Mark Thomson ’12, was cited by Justice Gorsuch in his concurring opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15 (June 26, 2019). The Kisor case concerned whether the Supreme Court should overturn the Auer doctrine, which calls upon courts to defer to federal government agency interpretations of their own regulations. Commenting on the case in their essay, Hickman and Thomson noted that common practical justifications for the Auer doctrine assumed that it simplified the judicial task and fostered consistency and predictability in the administrative process. But, they observed, various qualifications and exceptions that the Court has more recently added to the Auer doctrine have made its application substantially more complex and have undermined those practical rationales. Despite concurring in the Court’s decision to retain the Auer doctrine, Justice Gorsuch was sharply critical of the Court’s Auer jurisprudence, and cited Hickman and Thomson as supporting his contention that “Auer has also become ‘a doctrine of uncertain scope and application’ … [that] has resulted in ‘widespread confusion’ about when and how to apply Auer deference.”

  • Prof. Meili Presents Research on Constitutionalized Human Rights Law in Germany, the U.K., and the U.S.

    June 17, 2019

    Over the past three weeks, Professor Stephen Meili has presented his research on the constitutionalization of human rights law at conferences and workshops sponsored by the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg), the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of London, Queen Mary University (London), the Law & Society Association (Washington, D.C.), and the Latin American Studies Association (Boston). Meili’s research is part of a long term comparative project funded by the University of Minnesota’s Grand Challenges Research Initiative that looks at the circumstances under which constitutionalized human rights law offers protection to refugees and asylum-seekers beyond that which is provided under international law. Professor Meili’s recent presentations focused on his research in Mexico, which is in the vanguard of countries where lawyers frequently invoke constitutionalized human rights law in their representation of refugees and asylum-seekers from Central America and Venezuela. His research on Mexico will be published in the forthcoming issue of the Harvard Human Rights Journal.

  • Prof. Cotter Quoted by Reuters on Huawei/Verizon Patent Dispute

    June 14, 2019

    Professor Tom Cotter was quoted in a Reuters article titled “Explainer: Why is Huawei seeking $1 billion patent deal with Verizon?” “It was possible Huawei executives believe Verizon has been infringing their U.S. patents for some time but for business reasons waited until now to seek compensation,” Cotter said. “Patent owners ‘may not enforce their patents for a period of time, but they can choose do to so whenever they want to. It happens all the time.’”

  • Prof. Turoski Joins Amicus Brief in U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Supporting Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Patent Case

    June 7, 2019

    Prof. Turoski joined the Brief of Amici Curiae Law Professors in Support of Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc in DODOCASE VR, INC. fka Dodocase, Inc., v. MERCHSOURCE, LLC, DBA Sharper Image in the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

    The brief explains that Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969) should apply with equal strength to contracts barring AIA Trial Challenges by the licensee: “The panel’s sweeping elevation of boilerplate forum selection clause language is contrary to Congress’s clear intent to allow and even facilitate licensee validity challenges before the PTAB. Lear requires courts to consider the exceptionally important patent policy interests in validity challenges. Because the panel failed to engage in any such consideration and ignored binding precedent, this Court should grant rehearing to correct the error.”

  • Prof. McGeveran Tells MarketWatch About Value of Personal Data 

    June 6, 2019

    Dow Jones MarketWatch interviewed Prof. William McGeveran, an expert on data privacy, about the law’s struggle to define the monetary value of individual personal data and the harm caused when it is mishandled. As he summarized the difficult question: “Are privacy invasions wrong just because? Or are they only wrong when something bad happens as a result?”

  • Prof. Hickman Cited by U.S. Supreme Court

    June 6, 2019

    Prof. Kristin Hickman’s Administrative Law Treatise, co-authored with Prof. Richard J. Pierce, Jr., was cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Azar v. Allina Health Services, No. 17-1484 (June 3, 2019).  The case concerned whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services failed to satisfy statutory procedural requirements when it published on its website, without public notice and comment, a new policy that changed the calculation method for, and significantly reduced, Medicare payments to hospitals.  Invalidating the agency’s new policy for its lack of notice and comment, the Court cited Profs. Hickman and Pierce for the proposition that “[n]otice and comment gives affected parties fair warning of potential changes in the law and an opportunity to be heard on those changes—and it affords the agency a chance to avoid errors and make a more informed decision.”  

Pages

E.g., Aug 24 2019
E.g., Aug 24 2019

Contact Information

University of Minnesota Law School

Walter F. Mondale Hall | 229 19th Avenue South | Minneapolis, MN 55455

P: 612-625-5000

Email Us

Connect on Social Media