2 Strands Of Patent Law In High Court's 'Skinny Label' Case

Amarin v. Hikma, which is set for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court this month, highlights the distinction between two different strands of intellectual property law — analogizing a patent to either a property deed or a home, says Jonas McDavit at Spencer West.

Justices' Geofence Ruling May Test 4th Amendment's Future

When the U.S. Supreme Court decides in Chatrie v. U.S. whether law enforcement may use geofence warrants to compel Google to disclose location history data, the ruling is likely to become an important statement about the future of Fourth Amendment law in data-driven investigations, says Duncan Levin at Levin & Associates.

Series

NY Banking Brief: All The Notable Legal Updates In Q1

In the first quarter of 2026, New York's banking developments were headlined by initiatives to expand oversight of financial institutions and strengthen consumer protection laws, including a new framework for buy now, pay later lenders, a sweeping debt collection rule and a revised corporate self-disclosure program for financial crimes, say attorneys at Proskauer.

Seeking A Policy Fix As Merger Reporting Fight Continues

A recently announced request by the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice for public comment on the Hart-Scott-Rodino premerger reporting requirements, as litigation challenging the commission's updated requirements continues, suggests the government's willingness to address how best to support modern merger enforcement without unduly burdening filing parties, say attorneys at Baker Botts.

Opinion

Wash. Amazon Ruling Should Reshape Suicide Liability

The Washington Supreme Court's reinstatement of negligence claims in Scott v. Amazon.com, brought by the families of people who died by suicide after purchasing chemicals online, signals a reckoning for digital commerce and the rejection of the defense that online marketplaces are merely passive technology platforms, says Donald Fountain at Clark Fountain.

Axed Trade Secret Award Cautions Against Bundling Damages

The Fifth Circuit's recent ruling in Trinseo v. Harper, vacating a $75 million jury verdict for trade secret misappropriation due to a bundled damages model, offers a strong reminder to apportion damages so a jury can award a nonspeculative figure when it credits only some alleged secrets, say attorneys at Seyfarth.

2 Rulings Poke Holes In Mandatory Restitution Framework

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ellingburg v. U.S., as well as the Third Circuit’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Abrams, provide criminal defense practitioners with new tools to challenge Mandatory Victims Restitution Act orders, and highlight several restitution-related issues that converged in the recent prosecution of former Frank CEO Charlie Javice, say attorneys at Lankler Siffert & Wohl.

Pivotal 6th Circ. Ruling Threatens Decades Of NLRB Decisions

The Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Brown-Forman v. National Labor Relations Board fundamentally challenged the NLRB's long-standing practice of establishing policies through adjudication rather than formal rulemaking, giving employers and unions a new avenue to procedurally attack the vast majority of its rules, say attorneys at Faegre Drinker.

What A Court Doc Audit Reveals About Erroneous Filings

My audit of 1,522 court documents from last month found that over 95% contained at least one verifiable error, with fewer than 1% showing clear indicators of artificial intelligence use — highlighting above all else that lawyers may want to focus most on strengthening their review processes, says Elliott Ash at ETH Zurich.

Exploring When Fraud Asset Freezes Limit Right To Pick Atty

The defendant’s claim in the Seventh Circuit’s pending U.S. v. Shah case that the government restrained his assets until he couldn’t afford his chosen counsel presents a useful case study in how criminal forfeiture procedure interacts with U.S. Supreme Court rulings on Sixth Amendment rights and appealing complex fraud convictions, says Elisha Kobre at Sheppard.

How Justices' GEO Ruling Resets Gov't Contractor Litigation

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent GEO Group v. Menocal decision, holding that government contractors cannot immediately exit cases via interlocutory appeals, may increase litigation costs, strengthen plaintiffs' leverage in settlement negotiations and dampen the government's ability to attract bids on high-risk or sensitive projects, say attorneys at Wiley.

Appellate Strategy Lessons From Pa. Excess Coverage Ruling

In FedEx v. National Union Fire Insurance, a Pennsylvania state court recently set forth a clear holding that policyholders may recover postjudgment interest under excess liability insurance policies only when the policy language expressly allows, offering important takeaways for planning appeals, say attorneys at Hunton.

Defense Counsel Options Widen As No-Bill Rate Increases

Citizens impaneled on grand juries in politically motivated cases who are reasserting their role as a critical check on state power could provide criminal defense attorneys an opportunity to pursue seldom-used preindictment strategies, say attorneys at Ballard Spahr.

How Cos. Can Prepare For 'Made In America' Ad Scrutiny

The Trump administration's executive order to combat fraudulent "Made in America" claims in consumer-facing advertising, along with actions by the Federal Trade Commission, suggest a potential increased focus on consumer protection and pricing-related matters, say attorneys at Skadden.

Similar-Looking Designs May Not Always Prove Infringement

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Range of Motion Products v. Armaid is a reminder that even a strikingly similar design might not be found to infringe upon a patented design once design features driven by functionality are filtered out from consideration, say attorneys at BCLP.