Daily Journal Corporation’s Post

A great piece of wisdom from my colleague Xin Tao on key legal trends for Healthcare And Life Sciences sector in 2024.

Recently featured in the Daily Journal, article "California’s Cannabis Law Leaves Law Enforcement Agencies in a Haze", authored by LCW Partner Geoffrey Sheldon and Attorney Emanuela Tala explores California’s unique marijuana restrictions. They specifically highlight the exemptions outlined in AB 2188, noting "Unless and until SB 1264 or a similar bill is passed, it appears that public safety officers are generally free to use marijuana off duty and away from the workplace." The article examines the implications for recruitment, testing protocols, firearm policies, and other legislative changes impacting law enforcement. To access the full article, please click the below link: (Subscription required) https://lnkd.in/g8UnmNMp #law #legal #attorney #california #lawyer #laws #employmentlaw #laborrelations #marijuana #cannabis #cannabislaw #ab2188 #sb1264

The DC Circuit recently affirmed that the copying and posting of standards incorporated by reference into law constituted fair use. Learn more about the implications of this ruling for Standards Organizations, including potential financial impact, challenges with updates and timeliness, and reduced incentives for contribution to standardization efforts, in Seyfarth’s recent Legal Update authored by Arnold Brown, Jay Myers and me. #SeyfarthIP, https://lnkd.in/gzhCwuaG

The Lanham Act and the First Amendment are back in Supreme Court again! On Nov. 1, #SCOTUS will hear argument about whether the owner of that trademark can register it on the federal register. This is the fourth time since 2017 that the Court has taken up the issue of how the First Amendment interacts with the Lanham Act. Here, the question will turn on how the Justices view the federal trademark registration system: is it a government benefit (so the government can impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on speech in exchange for its grant) or is it a government regulation of speech (which requires heightened scrutiny)? Read my primer on the case in the Oct. 30th edition of the Daily Journal. This is an as-applied challenge, but will be closely watched nonetheless. https://lnkd.in/gDPpu3Tm #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #ConstitutionalLaw #FirstAmendment #Vidal #Trademark #USPTO

For those following the closing loopholes legislation in Australia, here is a good summary from Baker McKenzie of the bill and its potential impacts. #bakermckenzie #workforcereforms, #righttodisconnect

TRUMP TOO SMALL? On Nov. 1, #SCOTUS will hear argument about whether the owner of that trademark can register it on the federal register. This is the fourth time since 2017 that the Court has taken up the issue of how the First Amendment interacts with the Lanham Act. Here, the question will turn on how the Justices view the federal trademark registration system: is it a government benefit (so the government can impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions on speech in exchange for its grant) or is it a government regulation of speech (which requires heightened scrutiny)? Read my primer on the case in the Oct. 30th edition of the Daily Journal. This is an as-applied challenge, but will be closely watched nonetheless. https://lnkd.in/gDPpu3Tm #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #ConstitutionalLaw #FirstAmendment #Vidal #Trademark #USPTO

The U.S. Supreme Court has just handed down a game-changing ruling on the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exemption. In the case of Bissonnette and Wojnarowski v. Flowers Foods, the Court redefined who qualifies as a "transportation worker" exempt from mandatory arbitration clauses in employment contracts. Previously limited to those within the transportation industry, the Court's decision expands this definition to include anyone involved in transporting goods across state or international borders. 💼✈️🚚 What does this mean for your business? Join the conversation as we explore the far-reaching implications of this landmark verdict on arbitration agreements and worker classification. Subscription required https://ow.ly/ntZp50RgFFR #SupremeCourt #Arbitration #EmploymentLaw #LegalNews

Texas property owners have united against the State, challenging the flooding and damage to their properties caused by highway medians. Their consolidated lawsuit alleges that the State's actions amount to a "taking" for which they deserve just compensation, invoking both the Texas Constitution and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The legal journey saw the district court deny Texas' motion to dismiss the federal claim, affirming that property owners can indeed sue a State directly under the Takings Clause. However, the Fifth Circuit had a different view, reversing the decision and stating that the Takings Clause does not provide a direct right of action against a state. The Supreme Court has now stepped in, vacating the Fifth Circuit's judgment. The Court highlighted that Texas law already provides a cause of action for property owners to assert their rights under the Takings Clause. This development refrains from deciding on the broader question of whether a property owner can seek redress under the Takings Clause without a legislatively provided cause of action, as the existing state law already allows for such claims. Subscription required https://ow.ly/PYmx50RirS6 #PropertyLaw #SupremeCourt #LegalNews #Attorneys

And now the game of lobbying and negotiations is really starting - at EU Council level.

The EU's plans to change the rules of access to standardized technology (particularly telecommunication standards like 5G) are becoming more likely after today's parliament vote...