This is Bloomberg Law.
What does a prosecutor have to prove in order to get a rico conviction? Tell us why this Solicitor General is sometimes referred to as the tenth Justice.
Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal Experts.
That's Jennifer k for Bloomberg Law. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert miss.
And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
It's the toughest hurtle for prosecutors proving Trump's intent. Alito took on Congress saying Congress has no power to regulate the Supreme Court.
Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Welcome to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Ahead in this hour, the Supreme Court is facing a pile of cases from the conservative Fifth Circuit. Inside the Supreme Court's second decision allowing Biden's ghost gun regulations, and critics call him a patent troll. He prefers modern
day edison. An outside share of the Supreme Court's biggest case is this term will come from the ultra conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, who's far reaching rulings on federal regulatory power, guns and social media are proving impossible for the Supreme Court to ignore. Here's former US Solicitor General Gregory Gar's take on the Fifth Circuit.
Some people have said it sort of the Supreme Court versus the Fifth Circuit. It's interesting, I mean, the Fifth Circuit is now the most conservative circuit among the many. And you know, the kind of question that all these cases present is whether the Fifth Circuit has got out ahead of even the US Supreme Court today in terms of how conservative it is and whether or not the US Supreme Court feels as though it has to rein it in a little bit.
Joining me is Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg storre Greg just how conservative is the Fifth Circuit.
It's unquestionably the most conservative federal appeals court in the country, and it gets an awful lot of care, so we notice it even more than other courts. On this court, twelve of its full time judges are Republican appointees and only four are Democratic appointees. And six of those Republican
appointees are appointees of Donald Trump. And you know, they include some justices who are really trying to make a name for themselves with some really far reaching rulings, and so it's kind of consistently the place where conservatives go when they are looking to push the law in a certain direction.
There have been a lot of stories about the Texas judges who've become the go to judges, for example, for Republican states that want to sue. Tell us about the Trump appointees on the Fifth Circuit, because what seems unusual about them is they're not only conservative, but several of them made statements before they became judges that staked out very conservative positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Yeah.
So there's also one who while on the beat, has made some really remarkable statements. That's James ho He's a Trump appointee. He's described abortion while on the bench as a moral tragedy and written that if there's too much money in politics, because there's too much government. And then there's some other judges that really drew a lot of controversy when they were nominated, a guy like Corey Wilson, who had written that gay marriage is a pander to
liberal interest groups. Another judge, Stuart Kyle Duncan, who has written a lot of things in opposition to LGBTQ rights. And he was a judge who drew that protest at Stanford Law School where protesters shut him down, wouldn't let him speak. So he's very much a lightning rod.
The Fifth Circuit hasn't been faring that well at the Supreme Court. To me, it's taken the position the Ninth Circuit used to take, where it was the most reversed circuit for so many years. So tell us how it's done in the past year.
Not very well. So in the last Supreme Court term, in seven of nine cases the Court decided if at least partially or largely reversed the Fifth Circuit. Say it's different, just to go back to the Ninth Circuit. The way it's different is the Ninth Circuit, I had a well deserved reputation back in the day, is being very very liberal, and the Supreme Court, even when it wasn't as conservative as this Court is, would say, no, we're not going
to let you do that. Ninth Circuit. Here, it's a case where the Fifth Circuit is trying to sort of go beyond where the Supreme Court has gone. It is a conservative Supreme Court, and we have the Fifth Circuit trying to push the envelope even beyond where the Supreme Court has gone.
Do.
Some of their decisions seem like decisions that the Supreme Court almost has to take or it will allow the law to be, you know, even further out or even more conservative than the Court envisioned.
Yeah. So a number of the cases that Supreme Court has this term are cases where the Biden administration is appealing and there are cases where the Fifth Circuit struck down something that either an administrative agency or Congress did. So one example, there is a law that says the people subject to a domestic violence restraining order can have your Second Amendment rights gun rights taken away. The Fifth
Circuit said, Nope, that law is unconstitutional. The Biden administration came up to the Supreme Court, and really, in that sort of situation, the Court almost has to take the case. So we're going to now see what the Supreme Court thinks about that interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Yeah, that's guaranteed to be one of the biggest cases of the term. And my favorite line from that really was the Fifth Circuit saying that while the defendant there, Rahimi was quote hardly a model citizen he was entitled to Second Amendment protections. And this is a defendant who not only had a restraining order against him by his former girlfriend, but also shot his gun in public I think five times. So not exactly a model defendant for a case like this.
No, And in fact, if you're a Second Amendment advocate, a really bad defended to have in a case like this. You have both this law that protects again something that is pretty commonly understood to be a very very dangerous situation to somebody with domestic violence restraining order having access to firearms, and you also have somebody who a judge found had engaged in all sorts of criminal violent activity.
And the confluence of those things make it a case where, even with this conservative Supreme Court, it's going to be pretty hard for them to explain why mister himI is somebody who is entitled to keep his Second Amendment right.
The Supreme Court has several cases that may allow it to expand its attempt to rein in the administrative state, and a couple come from the Fifth Circuit oral arguments in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding system. The second time I think the CFPB has been before the Court So tell us about this Fifth Circuit decision.
Yeah, it is the second time the CFPB has been up before the Supreme Court. This case has to do with how the bureau gets its money. It gets its money through the Federal Reserve system. It doesn't rely on the US year congressional appropriations. And that was a part of Congress's design and creating this bureau after the two thousand and eight financial crisis. They wanted to give the CSPB a certain amount of independence, shielded from the political processes.
And what the Fifth Circuit said was this system violates the constitutional provision that says government spending has to be done via a congressional appropriation. Now, in the past, courts and concluding the Supreme Court have said that provision is something that keeps the executive branch from spending money that Congress hasn't authorized to be spent. Courts haven't used it to restrict Congress and the way they can set up an agency. Well, the this Circuit did in this case.
So it's a novel constitutional approach. There's not a whole lot to go by in terms of precedent, and it's going to be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court deals with that and then what it decides to do if it agrees that the system is unconstitutional.
There's another case, and it's the SEC and its use of in house judges. Another issue that's been before the Court, and the Fifth Circuit found three different problems with.
This, three different.
Three different problems. Two of them are sort of connected, and that may be kind of the biggest part of the case. The Fifth Circuit said that under the Constitution, folks hit with an SEC complaint in many cases have a right to a jury trial, meaning the SEC cannot bring those cases before an administrative law judge at the agency.
They have to go into federal court. And then the related aspect of the ruling is the Fifth Circuit said, and Congress did not give clear enough guidance to the SEC, clear enough principles to decide which cases it's going to take before the administrative law judge and which case is going to go to the Supreme Court. The final issue is that the Fifth Circuit said that the job protections that the administrative law judge is that the SEC have
will leave them too insulated from presidential control. That's an issue the Supreme Court is considered in slightly different context before or so if the Supreme Court wants to rule against the SEC it's got kind of a menu of ways it can do that.
Two cases involve free speech, the rights of social media companies, and a Fifth Circuit decision that clashes with an Eleventh Circuit decision. The Eleventh Circuit probably the second most conservative circuit in the country.
These are laws that were put in the place by Republican controlled states Texas and Florida, and they basically dictate the social media companies how they to go about managing content and removing misinformation, and they have rules about what they have to say when they take down a post online. And the social media industry trade groups sued and said that violates our First Amendment rights. The Fifth Circuit upheld the Texas law. The Eleventh Circuit struck down much of
Florida's law. The eleven Circuit devoted much of its focus to a provision that requires a detailed explanation every time a social media company makes a content management decision.
These decisions are not just conservative, but their novel. They just seem not wedded to precedent.
You know, some of them are taking on new issues. The appropriations clause issue is one that hasn't really been tested, at least not recently, and some of them. You look at the gun case, for example, the Rehimi case, when the Supreme Court ruled on the right to carry a gun in twenty twenty two, the court said, the test is going to be history and tradition, and you're suppose, judges, you're supposed to look and try to find a historical
analog for some current regulation. And if you can't find an historical analog, that's a pretty good sign that this provision is unconstitutional.
That's Bloomberg New Supreme Court reporter Greg Store. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. It's a Supreme Court decision about regulations on ghost guns. But the justices seem to be said a strong message to the Fifth Circuit and a Texas judge. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
You're listening to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. In September, New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced that in a search of a private daycare in Harlem police recovered drugs, ghost guns and the three D printer used to make them.
Who would have thought that we must add to our list of inspections of do we have three D printers that can print guns?
The Biden administration has issued regulations on these ghost guns, which are assembled from kits without the usual serial numbers and background checks on purchasers, making them a track active to teenagers and those with criminal records. The Supreme Court has reinstated those regulations, blocking a second nationwide injunction issued by Texas Federal Judge Ried O'Connor and okayed by the Fifth Circuit. Does this mean the Supreme Court is telling
the judge and the Fifth Circuit no? Means no? Or does it mean something more substantive about ghost gun regulations? Joining me? Is Heidi Lee Feldman, a professor at Georgetown Law. So let's go back to the August decision where the Supreme Court blocked a nationwide injunction by Judge rit O'Connor and allowed the government to keep enforcing the regulations on ghost guns. Should that have been the end of this until the case was fully litigated.
One would have thought so, And that's certainly Ultimately the position the government took it was very peculiar that they sought an injunction pending appeal. That is an alteration in the procedural posts rush of the case. They didn't give any new reason for seeking an injunction while the case was pending, and that was I think the really controversial thing. Nothing had changed in the facts or the law that
would be relevant to granting an injunction. So ordinarily, if a party did that, the judge would just deny it because they had just had an injunction overturned by the Supreme Court. Of course, in this case, Judge O'Connor granted the injunction and didn't give any new reasons, and the court really just put the kebash on that and said no, no.
Also, the Fifth Circuit upheld his order.
Yeah. Look, there's several very contested matters that are driving this litigation. Ghost gun manufacturers come in and say, we object to this ATF rule making, which seems to require us to take all sorts of steps that people who may firearms have to take. We're arguing we're not firearms manufacturers, we're parts suppliers. So that whole dynamic introduces guns into the mix. Then we have a federal agency atf which
has its own long complicated history. Then we have a judiciary, certainly O'Connor and the Fifth Circuit that's very keen to invalidate agency rulemaking. So I think the Fifth Circuit as a whole was very moved by that agenda, and so they do uphold O'Connor's order, and so ultimately, of course, the Supreme Court is rejecting the Fifth Circuits position as
well as O'Connor's position on the injunction. But the fact that the Supreme Court took that position isn't an indication of how they would ultimately rule on the merits as much as I think it was a rejection of the challenge to the authority of their earlier ruling.
So the Court's August order was a five to four decision where Chief Justice Roberts and Justice amy Cony Barrett joined the Court's three liberals. So there were four descents in August, but no justice publicly dissented from this order that was handed down. Does that mean the justices are telling the judge in the Fifth Circuit no means no? Or does it mean something more substantive about ghost gun regulations.
It's very hard to read tea leaves from these orders that are issued without opinions, and these are orders that relate to not the final merits on the case. So
I want to sound a note of caution. I think that there are justices on the Court who may be very unsympathetic to the ATF rulemaking related to ghost guns, who realize that you simply cannot operate our system of litigating cases case by case and letting different courts reach different conclusions if they disagree and see what emerges up through the process, and what rit O'Connor and the Fifth Circuit wanted to do absolutely disrupts that process. It also
wastes the Supreme Court's time. I mean, they do not want to have to keep issuing redundant interlocutory orders. That's just completely inefficient for them. So I think you could have justices who may be less sympathetic to the idea of letting the ATF rule making stand or more sympathetic to relatively unfettered sales of ghost guns, who nevertheless see procedural chaos from what the Fifth Circuit and Judge O'Connor did.
The Fifth Circuit last term lost I think seven out of a cases at the Supreme Court, and they have a lot of cases before the court this year, and many of them are from judges in Texas like rit O'Connor that seem to have novels, shall we say, no legal reasoning and their decisions.
I mean, do you think we have to I think we have to be as a stronger word than novel. Look in sophisticated litigation in federal courts, advocates and courts are advancing the law, so there's often something novel in what they argue, in what courts hold. That's neither unexpected nor unusual. What is problematic is when you have a court and the federal judiciary in Texas, the district court level is like this, and the fifth Circuit is like this,
that is receptive to extreme arguments. They're not just creative novel they are highly contentious. Now, if you have a court that is receptive to that, maybe some of those highly contentious and highly extreme arguments will ultimately be vindicated. But the more extreme the substance is of a position that's being taken, the more cuts. Generally, courts are in composing big procedural consequences until those big arguments and positions
go through the appellate process of review. So I think that the Fifth Circuit and the Texas District courts in general generate a lot of extreme positions. What we saw here was this intersection of extreme positions and willingness first to issue a very sweeping injunction on the basis of the extreme position nationwide injunction, and then to sort of double down on that after the Supreme Court said it
wasn't appropriate. The combination of extreme positions and aggressiveness about imposing consequences before the appellate process has played out thoroughly is a way of really throwing a spanner in the gears of adjudication, as the Federal Court understands it, and they're just not going to tolerate that.
So frame for us the message the Supreme Court is sending to the Fifth Circuit and Judge O'Connor.
They're saying, don't play games with us about procedure. If you have very good reason to believe that we've taken a given position, don't pretend we haven't taken that position and act contrary to what we already said. I mean, in some ways, what they're saying is you cannot pretend that we haven't spoken. I mean, in some sense, it sounds so simple. When you have a judicial system that's founded on the idea of appellet review, lower courts are
answerable to higher courts in that system. So in some sense it's very bizarre for the High Court to have to issue an order that I think is basically saying you are totally acting way outside of your job. You are flouting your role. That's what I think they were saying.
And we'll see if the Fifth Circuit and Judge O'Connor have that message. Thanks so much. That's Professor Heidi Lee Feldman of Georgetown Law. A note. Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg Radio, is a donor to groups that support gun control, including every Town for Guns Safety coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show. Critics call him a patent troll.
He prefers modern day edison. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg, this.
Is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
You're listening to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Is Lee Rothschild among the most prolific inventors of his generation as he sees himself, or is he a patent troll as his critics see him. Rothschild is listed as the sole inventor of more than one hundred and thirty patents, but his network of companies don't make any products. He readily admits his entire business model is built around monetizing his intellectual property through litigation and licensing,
and there appears to be more litigation than licensing. Joining me is Laurel Culkins, Bloomberg Law reporter who's interviewed and written about Rothschild. Laurel tell us what Lee Rothschild has invented?
Well, first of all, you have to understand that Lee Rothschild is in a handful of unique individuals in the country, and that he's both a bona fide inventor and a patent troll. And if you don't know what patent troll means, it's a derogatory flur that high tech companies slap onto litigants who show up in court with sometimes basic patents for generic technology, and then they try to extract a nuisance settlement that's cheaper than the cost of going to trial. Well,
Rothschild's in a different camp. He is an actual inventor. He has one hundred thirty patents solely in his name. He started when he was twenty. He's now seventy one, and he's invented some wild things. His very first invention when he was in his teens was quadrophonic stereo if you remember back that far. And the things he's got patents on now are like virtual reality exercise machines QR
codes connected to the Internet. He had a public company for a while in the nineties that was all about barcodes. He was a pioneer in barcode technology. So he actually had the legit patent portfolio, which puts him in a different camp. And that's why he has this kind of love hate relationship with the term patent troll. He says, yeah, classic patent troll is somebody who takes a crappy patent and goes and files a newsman's lawsuit, you know, to extract a settlement.
He goes.
But if you want to put me in the camp of legit inventors like the Wright brothers and Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison who had groundbreaking inventions but had to go to court to defend them with supporting evidence. He goes, Yeah, if you want to put me in that camp.
Patent troll, can you explain in a little more depth what makes a patent troll?
Like I said, it's a derogatory slur that high tech companies apply to people who own a patent and go to defend it in court and say, you're using my technology without taking a license, so you've copied my idea and you owe me money for it. Well, the problem is most patent trolls actually don't have any operations or what's called nonpracticing entities, and all they do is litigation. They just go around sue people, and sometimes their patents
are so generic that they're laughable. And that's what's kind of funny is Lee Rothschild has some on each side. He has some that are very serious, groundbreaking inventions, and then he has a couple that have been named soup and Patent of the Months by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which mocks him relentlessly.
He's got a sue and settle model in place.
Yes, he's very upfront that his business model is all about licensing and litigation. He would rather that if a company is utilizing one of his protected ideas, a patented idea, that they simply come to him and license it or even buy the patent. The company that owns Instacart bought one of his patents several years ago to improve their user experience on their app, and he says he's licensed that one, that it was called stupid patent of the month.
He said he's licensed at least fifty times to major companies, so it clearly has the merit somewhere. The thing is, most patent trolls, and he follows this model is they file a lawsuit and they want damages for past and future infringement, they want a royalty whatever, something like that.
But then they almost immediately send an offer over to their target and say, oh, we'll settle for what looks like couch money because it's much less than the cost of litigation, and yet it's more than enough to pay
the troll's expenses. We found a couple in Rothschild's name and the names of several of his business entities, one in particular, where he said, well, this lawsuit, you will drop it if you give us seventy five thousand dollars and the company said no, so we think you should pay our attorney speedes because we don't think you were
acting properly. And the trialj has looked at that and said, well, you know, they didn't exactly defile the temple of justice, so I'm not going to make them pay your fees. But I'm also not going to make you pay them either.
But the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which handles patent cases, had something different to say about him.
In a particular case involving the ADS Home Security System company, they brought forward enough evidence that Rothschild said, Okay, I'm going to drop my complaint because I don't think I can win an infringement action against you. So ADS got real aggressive and said no, we're going to counter see you for our attorney speed and he refused to pay, and the trial jie said well, now let's just call.
It to day.
Nobody pays anybody. And then it went up on appeal and the appellate court got real aggressive and said, this is a frivolous lawsuit. It's frivolous on a face, it never should have been filed and we're going to require the rothschild entity to pay ads. It's attorney's seasons. There's forty three thousand dollars. So there's clearly a camp of detractors out there that don't like this kind of litigation.
Are the people he's suing deliberately infringing his patents or are they working under other patents and so have good grounds for fighting these lawsuits? He brings it's both.
Sometimes the companies are actually stealing your idea. I mean, I certainly am not familiar with his entire portfolio, not even close, But I know that I cover patents all the time, and there are legitimate cases where large technology companies have simply taken an idea that they like. They've held licensing talks, the talks went nowhere. They took the idea and ran with it. So that happens, and inventors
have legitimate rights to defend themselves. He's filed literally thousands of these patent claims, and he's gone after big names. He's sued Google, he's too, Roku, Apple, Samsung. I mean, do you look up any high tech company and he's probably all an action against them. I mean, that may be a bit too broad, but it's pretty clear. And sometimes patents are in addition to an idea, so it becomes kind of a gray zone as to what would fly in in front of a jury and what wouldn't.
And he tends to file his cases in patent friendly jurisdictions. There's two primary patent courts in Texas and he files in both of them, and they're both notorious for having juries that return Whopper awards in favor of the plaintiffs. So he's kind of got the choice of courthouse on his side when he fils.
You talk to a professor who said, it's an urban myth that Texas is a haven for patent trolls. But that's what I've always heard. There have been plenty of stories about patent suits in Texas.
Well. Yeah, I think that. I think Texas, the two particular Texas courts in Waco and in Marshall, which is in Deep East Texas, they deserve their reputations as patent havens trolls for two reasons. First of all, the judges are former patent attorneys. They understand patent law very very well. The other thing is they get so many patent cases that it simply becomes a numbers game. Most litigation in the United States, the patent cases included subtle and they
never go to trial. But if you've got thousands and thousands more cases being filed in your court, odds are a few of them are going to go to trial. And Texas jury's are sort of notorious for punishing people who steal from little guys. So if an inventor can get their story in front of a jury that you so told my idea and it's David versus Goliath, and you owe me a lot of times, the Texas jury will reward that story. But what's really interesting about Rothschild
is he's never gone to trial ever. He's filed thousands of these lawsuits. In fact, I think we counted he has eighty filed since twenty twenty one alone in the US, and he's never gone to trial. He settles or drops every single one of them, and I find that amazing.
And he's got a t T to support his litigation efforts absolutely.
His business model is that he works with two different groups of people. He has a team of patent researchers who are based in India and they are very familiar with the patents in the Rothschild into these portfolios, and they actively go out and search for potential infringers that they can bring actions against in courts. They do it in other parts of the world. I just don't only
following the United States. But the researchers bring potential candidates forward and then a team of lawyers that Rosschild employees look them over and say that's so potential winner, that one's a no go, and they make their choices there. Then he has another side, on the invention side. He employs a team of patent attorneys in Florida where he lives that also work with some in London, where he bounces his ideas off of these lawyers and say, I've
come up with this idea. I've got this invention, should we patent that? And they research it to see if somebody else has already patented the idea, and then they go forward with that. So he has he has lawyers on both sides helping him patent his inventions and helping
him prosecute potential infringers of his inventions. He told me he has right now at least two hundred ideas patent applications in process, backlogged within his own invention team that they just haven't had time to fully finish out and send over to the patent office. He says he has dozens pending at the patent office waiting to be approved. So this guy's busy.
Coming up next, efforts to solve the problem of patent trolls. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
You're listening to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I've been talking to Bloomberg Law reporter Laurel Culkins about Lee Rothschild, who's it's listed as the sole inventor of more than one hundred and thirty patents, but his business model is built around litigation, so critics call him a patent troll. So why isn't he the greatest inventor of all? Timothy has all these ideas and all these patents. Why aren't people licensing them or buying them?
That's a good question. I don't really have an answer for you. I know that he says he negotiated more than a thousand licenses. The thing about patents is it's not always the light bulb or the record player or the telephone. Sometimes it's an integrated circuit. Sometimes it's a way of connecting things together in a series. So the idea is integral to the ultimate consumer product, but the patent itself may not be the consumer product. So he may actually be in a number of products. That's what
he claimed, that he's in a number of products. The patent that was mocked as being a stupid patent of the month, he claims that that's the forerunner of the Internet of things, where all these devices are connected to the Internet. So he may be in a lot of things that we just don't know about.
And there's no way to really check it because he tells you that it's confidential, right exactly.
He's a private company. He doesn't have to disclose any of this. We went into the patent records at the patent office and the abstracts are somewhat hard to understand sometimes, and they don't always record licensing, you know, Licensing agreements don't have to be recorded anywhere that I'm aware of. So, yeah, you can't verify what he has to say. But I also know that he would not be doing this if it wasn't profitable, and I trip over him all the
time in the courthouse. I mean, I look at the filings every day in a couple of these major Texas courthouses, and it's rarely a week that goes by that I don't see one or two actions from him, or action on one or two of his existing cases.
And yet he says that litigation was not his primary goal, but it sure seems like he's made a business out of it, right.
It's because it works, He said, his dearest love is in He really likes to invent, and he sort of leaves the mechanics of the litigation to others, but he's a very strong defender of inventor's rights to protect their ideas, So he sort of places himself as a crusader. He spends his time personally inventing and thinking things up, and then he sort of turns things over to the other teams to execute them in terms of protecting the idea
and licensing the idea. But he said he would love nothing more than to see somebody buy one of his patents and turn it into a full scale product, just right there in front of him. He would love that.
So he says we've been talking about and hearing about patent trolls for I don't know decades. Have they tried to do anything to stop this or to curtail this.
Yes, certain states have come out with laws to try to make these kinds of lawsuits more difficult to bring.
I believe we mentioned in the story a state in the Pacific Northwest that has its own, you know, sort of patent troll Prevention Act, and one of the high tech companies out there that was being threatened with litigation by one of the Rothschild entities counter suit him as a preemptive strike and said you're violating the Patent Troll Act, and it didn't stop them, a different Rosthschild than anyone ahead ensued under the patent anyway. So you know, it's
continuing on both tracks. But there are efforts in Congress too, I think for last year they introduced it and then this year has been introduced again, but nothing's acted on it about ways to narrow patent eligibility so that it's not as easy to sue on some of these patents that are so broad they're almost laughable, like you know, connecting two things together in a circuit. I mean clearly
that's not it. But you know, it's just some stuff that is so basic, like really, that's a patentable idea.
Thanks so much, Laurel. That's Bloomberg Law Reporter Laurel Culkins, And that's it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can and always get the latest legal news by listening to our Bloomberg Law podcasts. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law. This is Bloomberg Law on Bloomberg Radio. I'm June Grosso. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now