Expert Analysis

• What $5.7B Apple Verdict Reveals About Patent Risk

  

  A California federal jury's recent $5.7 billion damages verdict against Apple exemplifies the enormous financial exposure that can occur when patent-infringing features are incorporated into many units, though the outcome is ultimately dependent on the strength of the underlying infringement, validity and damages theories, says Michael Dorfman at Barclay Damon.

• Dissecting Dodd's, Gensler's Prediction Market Amicus Briefs

  

  Former Sen. Chris Dodd and former U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler's recent amicus briefs in support of New Jersey's petition for U.S. Supreme Court review of Kalshi v. Flaherty draw on legislative history to counter the CFTC's claim of federal preemption over the prediction markets, says Trace Schmeltz at Steptoe.

• What Colo. High Court Will Weigh In Insurer Disclosure Case

  

  In Bohanan v. Esurance, the Colorado Supreme Court will decide whether an insurance policy must be produced to a claimant notwithstanding the insurer's coverage position, and the court's interpretation of what "may be relevant to the claim," in the statute, will be paramount, say attorneys at Burg Simpson.

• 6th Circ. Spotlights Cannabis Contract Enforceability Risks

  

  The Sixth Circuit's recent reversal of a $31.8 million jury verdict against a subsidiary of cannabis giant Curaleaf highlights that state licenses do not necessarily provide the legal foundation needed to enforce contracts in federal court, which is a pattern that appears across many sectors, say attorneys at ArentFox Schiff.

• Preventing HOA Bias After Wash. Ruling Highlights Risk

  

  Because homeowners nationwide can now draw on precedent from a recent Washington state appellate decision holding that state antidiscrimination law forbids homeowners associations from biased enforcement of their rules, common-interest communities should immediately work to mitigate their expanded exposure to postsale fair housing liability, says Brett Sullivan at Fennemore.

• 2nd Circ. Eases Employer Defense Of Dress Code Rules

  

  The Second Circuit recently sided with Starbucks in a ruling that makes it easier for companies to defend dress code policies against unfair labor practice challenges, but employers shouldn't read it as a license to ban union insignia, say attorneys at Shipman & Goodwin.

• 5 Prediction Market Queries For Every League, Athletic Dept.

  

  The NFL's recent amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split over regulating prediction markets and operators like Kalshi raises important, enterprisewide governance questions for leagues, teams and athletic departments, and highlights that regulatory oversight and institutional integrity are related but distinct, say attorneys at Robins Kaplan.

• Tips For Employers As Calif. Court Limits Harassment Liability

  

  Doe v. Wells Fargo appears to be the first published California appellate decision to determine that the harasser must have supervisory authority over the plaintiff to trigger strict liability, underscoring the value of accurately documenting job roles and reporting lines, says Ellen Connelly Cohen at Call & Jensen.

• What CMS Audit Rule Means For Medicare Advantage Plans

  

  Despite ongoing legal challenges, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is moving forward with implementation of its risk adjustment data validation audits, raising statistical concerns around overpayments indicated by variance in unbalanced samples, say Stephen Fink, Brad Rice and Igor Karagodsky at Analysis Group.

• SEC's Insider Trading Duty Rule May Face Loper Bright Test

  

  In U.S. v. Jennings, pending in New Jersey federal court, the defense has an opportunity to challenge the rule defining the boundaries of the misappropriation theory of insider trading under Loper Bright, as the only litigated case testing the rule's limits relied on Chevron deference, say attorneys at O'Melveny.

• What's At Stake As Justices Rethink Sentencing Commentary

  

  Tuesday’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Beaird v. U.S. highlighted the tension between preserving sentencing consistency and limiting the authority of sentencing guidelines commentary, and a decision favoring the latter could significantly reduce sentencing exposure for white collar defendants, say attorneys at Baker Donelson.

• Bankruptcy Deadlines, Concessions Can Decide Lien Priority

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Adler v. Energy Debt Holdings warns buyers of secured claims to watch for binding concessions in earlier proceedings and court-imposed lien challenge deadlines, says Jennifer Maleski at Dilworth Paxson.

• What Lawyers Should Know Before Accepting Crypto Payment

  

  As clients increasingly request to pay legal fees, retainers and escrow funds using cryptocurrency, lawyers should consider how only a handful of state bar authorities have addressed the issue with varying ethics opinions, as well as the related questions that no authority has yet answered, says attorney Felix Shipkevich.

• Battles Over Murky Mineral Rights Stymie Pa. Energy Projects

  

  Legal wrangling over a recently passed Pennsylvania law could affect billions of dollars of mineral royalty payments, the status of subsurface property rights in the state and the ability of the Legislature to pass retroactive legislation that affects those rights, say attorneys at Flaster Greenberg.

• Mo. Official's Indictment Tests Limits Of Federal Bribery Laws

  

  The recent bribery charges filed against a Missouri county executive raise questions about whether field-clearing conversations and job offers between rival candidates can rise to the level of illegal quid pro quos, potentially muddying the line between politics as usual and the federal bribery statutes, say attorneys at ArentFox Schiff.