Skip to main content
Andrew Tauber

Andrew Tauber

Partner
T +1 202 263 3324
F +1 202 263 5324
  • RSS Icon
News & Publications
  • AddRemove
  • Build a Report 

Appellate Briefs

Read appellate briefs authored by Andrew

Oral Argument Recordings

Listen to oral arguments by Andrew

News Releases
18 November 2015
Mayer Brown announced that its Supreme Court & Appellate practice has been named one of the best in the United States by The National Law Journal (NLJ) for the eighth consecutive year.
Media Coverage
16 November 2015
The National Law Journal
For the eighth consecutive year, Mayer Brown has been named to The National Law Journal’s Appellate Hot List.
News Releases
3 November 2015
Mayer Brown announced that Benchmark Litigation 2016 awarded the firm a top-tier ranking in the national Appellate category and also ranked the firm in the national Antitrust category. In addition, nine of the firm’s lawyers were ranked as “National Litigation Stars” in their practice categories. Mayer Brown also was “Highly Recommended” in Illinois and Washington DC and “Recommended” in Texas. Additionally, 21 Mayer Brown lawyers were ranked as “Local Litigation Stars” or “Future Stars."
Media Coverage
17 September 2015
The Gray Sheet (subscription required)
Litigation & Dispute Resolution partner Andy Tauber (Washington, DC) is quoted extensively on medical device preemption issues.
Media Coverage
1 July 2015
Pharma & Medtech Business Intelligence (subscription required)
Litigation & Dispute Resolution partner Andy Tauber (Washington, DC) is quoted extensively in an article discussing Athena Cosmetics v. Allergan.
Media Coverage
10 June 2015
Litigation Daily
Litigation & Dispute Resolution partner Andy Tauber (Washington, DC) is quoted in an article discussing Medtronic Inc.
Media Coverage
14 January 2015
Inside Counsel
In a bylined article, Litigation & Dispute Resolution partners Andrew Tauber and Dan Himmelfarb (both Washington DC) discuss the issues in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.
Book
December 2013
Mayer Brown Book
Edited and authored by Mayer Brown lawyers, Bloomberg BNA’s Second Edition, Federal Appellate Practice book is the primary resource for fully understanding the federal appellate process.
Media Coverage
October 2012
For the Defense
A bylined article by Litigation & Dispute Resolution partner Andrew Tauber (Washington, DC) explains how to argue medical device preemption and discusses best practices and pitfalls to avoid.
Media Coverage
1 October 2012
Law360
Litigation & Dispute Resolution partner Andy Tauber (Washington, DC) is quoted in an article reporting that the Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to the Fourth Circuit's finding that malfunctioning medical devices are in violation of federal law only if they do not meet performance standards established by the US Food and Drug Administration.
Legal Update
27 June 2012
Mayer Brown Legal Update

As the Supreme Court looks ahead to its next term, the Court granted certiorari in three cases of particular significance to employers. In these cases, the Court will address the impact of offers of judgment on federal wage and hour collective actions, the scope of vicarious liability for acts of supervisors under Title VII, and the type of equitable relief available to plan fiduciaries regarding the enforcement of reimbursement provisions.

Legal Update
22 June 2012
Mayer Brown Legal Update

In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the Supreme Court held that under the Sixth Amendment “any fact,” other than the fact of a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum “must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490. On June 21, 2012, in Southern Union Co. v. United States, No. 11-94, the Supreme Court ruled that this constitutional right extends to criminal fines.

Legal Update
18 June 2012
Mayer Brown Legal Update
The outside-sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) provides that an individual who is employed “in the capacity of outside salesman” is not entitled to overtime pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(a)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1).
Legal Update
19 April 2012
Mayer Brown Legal Update
When the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) denies an application for a patent, the applicant may seek judicial relief in two different ways. The applicant may obtain review directly in the Federal Circuit (pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 141) or, in the alternative, the applicant may file a civil action against the PTO in federal district court (pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145).
Legal Update
1 February 2012
Mayer Brown Legal Update
In Walker v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 10-2219, ___F.3d___ (January 25, 2012), the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempt state-law claims arising from the alleged malfunction of a Class-III medical device that had received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration and had complied with all requirements imposed by the agency.
Legal Update
24 June 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
In a trilogy of closely watched cases, PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, No. 09-993, Activas Elizabeth, LLC v. Mensing, No. 09-1039, and Activas, Inc. v. Demahy, No. 09-1501, the Supreme Court held that the federal statutes and regulations governing the labeling of generic drugs preempt state-law failure-to-warn claims against generic drug manufacturers. The Court had previously held, in Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S. Ct. 1187 (2009), that failure-to-warn claims against brand-name drug manufacturers generally are not preempted.
Legal Update
24 June 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
In Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit non-Article III federal bankruptcy courts to enter final judgments on a debtor’s counterclaims when those claims are based solely on state law.
Legal Update
17 June 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
SEC Rule 10b-5 prohibits “mak[ing] any untrue statement of a material fact” in connection with the purchase and sale of securities. 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (2010). In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, No. 09-525, that only an entity that has “ultimate authority” over an allegedly false statement can be held liable in a private action brought under Rule 10b-5. Slip op. 6. In so holding, the Court relied upon and reinforced its prior decisions in Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994), and Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008).
Legal Update
10 June 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
In a decision that largely maintains the status quo but is nevertheless of considerable interest to patent holders and patent users, the Supreme Court held that to establish a patent-invalidity defense an alleged infringer must prove the patent’s invalidity by “clear and convincing” evidence. Today’s decision in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, No. 10-290, affirms the Federal Circuit’s long-standing interpretation of Section 282 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 282, which states that “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and that “[t]he burden of establishing invalidity . . . shall rest on the party asserting” the invalidity.
Legal Update
7 June 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
In a decision that could affect the numerous recipients of federal funding for research, the Supreme Court addressed the proper interpretation of the Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq., which allocates rights in inventions developed with federal funds. The Act allows recipients of federal research funding to retain title to inventions developed with that funding, provided certain conditions are met. The question presented in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. was whether the Bayh-Dole Act automatically vested the recipient of federal funding with the rights to an invention developed by one of its employees using that funding. In a 7-2 decision today, the Court held that the Act does not automatically vest title to such inventions with the recipient of federal funding and that title instead remains with the original inventor.
Legal Update
1 June 2011
Legal Update
17 May 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., seeks to ensure that individuals receive accurate and understandable information regarding their rights and obligations under employee benefit plans.
Video
27 April 2011
Mayer Brown Video
Mayer Brown’s Supreme Court & Appellate practice is pleased to present “After the Argument: Assessing US Supreme Court Business Cases.” In this video series, we discuss the oral arguments in some of the important business cases currently pending before the US Supreme Court this Term. Each edition will include a summary of the questions presented to the Court, a recap of the oral argument (including questions asked and the tone of the Justices), and a discussion of how a decision might affect businesses.
Legal Update
23 February 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (“OCSLA”) extends worker compensation benefits for “disability or death . . . resulting from any injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer Continental Shelf.” 43 U.S.C. § 1333(b). On February 22, 2011, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Pacific Operations Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, No. 10-507, to resolve disagreement among the lower courts as to the scope of that provision.
Legal Update
11 January 2011
Mayer Brown Legal Update
When pharmacies fill a prescription, they record the name and address of the prescriber, the name and dosage of the drug, and the age and gender of the patient. Pharmacies sell this information to data-collection companies, which compile it into reports detailing individual prescribers’ prescription histories. Pharmaceutical companies then purchase these reports from the data-collection companies and use them to target their marketing efforts to the prescribers most likely to prescribe their drugs. Along with an increasing number of other states, the state of Vermont restricts this practice by banning the sale and use of prescriber-identifiable data for the marketing or promotion of pharmaceutical drugs unless the prescriber consents to the use of the data. Late Friday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., No. 10-779, to decide whether Vermont’s prescriber-data law violates the First Amendment.

The Build a Report feature requires the use of cookies to function properly.  Cookies are small text files that are placed on your computer by websites that you visit. They are widely used in order to make websites work, or work more efficiently.  If you do not accept cookies, this function will not work.  For more information please see our Privacy Policy

You have no pages selected. Please select pages to email then resubmit.