Expert Analysis

• ERISA Ruling Is A Win For DOL Regulatory Authority

  

  In Rappaport v. Guardian Life Insurance, a New York federal court recently issued a notable disability benefits ruling in finding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright opinion does not affect how existing U.S. Department of Labor regulations apply in Employee Retirement Income Security Act litigation, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Litigation Inspiration: Reframing Document Review

  

  For attorneys — new ones especially — there is much fulfillment to find in document review by reflecting on how important, interesting and pleasant it can be, says Bennett Rawicki at Hilgers Graben.

• What Fed. Circ. Ruling Means For Patent Case Dismissals

  

  ​​​​​​​The Federal Circuit's recent decision in UTTO v. Metrotech is significant because it specifically authorizes district courts to dismiss patent infringement lawsuits without a separate Markman hearing, but only when the meaning of a claim term is clear and case-dispositive, says Peter Gergely at Merchant & Gould.

• 7th Circ. Travel Time Ruling Has Far-Reaching Implications

  

  In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit’s recent holding in Walters v. Professional Labor Group will have significant implications for employers that must now provide travel time compensation for employees on overnight assignments away from home, says Anthony Sbardellati at Akerman.

• The Fed. Circ. In October: Anti-Suit Injunctions And SEPs

  

  The Federal Circuit's holding in Ericsson v. Lenovo, a complex global case involving standard-essential patents, will likely have broad consequences for practitioners, including by making it easier to obtain an anti-suit injunction, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• IP Ruling Likely To Limit Arguments Against Qualified Experts

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Osseo v. Planmeca, clarifying when experts may offer testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan, provides helpful guidance on expert qualifications and could quash future timing arguments regarding declarants' expertise, says Whitney Jenkins at Marshall Gerstein.

• Unpacking Arguments From High Court's Rural Hospital Case

  

  During oral arguments in Advocate v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court justices focused questions on the meaning of being "entitled to" supplementary security income assistance, and there's reason for optimism that the likely split decision will break in favor of hospitals, say attorneys at King & Spalding.

• Args In 2 High Court Cases May Foretell Clarity For Employers

  

  Mary Anna Brand at Maynard Nexsen examines possible employment implications of two cases argued before the Supreme Court this fall, including a higher bar for justifying employees as overtime exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and earlier grants of prevailing party status for employee-plaintiffs seeking attorney fees.

• California Supreme Court's Year In Review

  

  Attorneys at Horvitz & Levy highlight notable decisions on major questions from the California Supreme Court's last term, including voter initiatives, hostile work environment and the economic loss rule.

• DC Circ. Decision Opens Door To NEPA Regulation Litigation

  

  A recent D.C. Circuit decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration could open the door to more litigation over the White House Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act regulations, and could affect how many agencies conduct and interpret environmental assessments, say attorneys at ArentFox Schiff.

• Navigating 4th Circ.'s Antitrust Burden In Hybrid Relationships

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review the Fourth Circuit's Brewbaker decision, a holding that heightens the burden on antitrust prosecutors when the target companies have a hybrid horizontal-vertical relationship, but diverges from other circuits, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Dissecting The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Debate

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Allergan v. MSN highlights the ongoing evolution of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, revealing increasing tension between expiration-based interpretations and procedural flexibility, says Jeremy Lowe at Leydig Voit.

• Calif. Ruling May Shield Public Employers From Labor Claims

  

  In Stone v. Alameda Health System, the California Supreme Court recently exempted a county hospital from state-mandated rest breaks and the Private Attorneys General Act, granting government employers a robust new bulwark against other labor statutes by undermining an established doctrine for determining if a law applies to public entities, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Contract Disputes Recap: Perils Of Perfunctory Interpretation

  

  Attorneys at Seyfarth examine three recent decisions in which the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Federal Circuit ruthlessly dismantled arguments that rely on superficial understandings of different contract terms.

• 2nd Circ. AmTrust Decision Shows Audit Reports Still Matter

  

  Though the Second Circuit eventually found on reconsidering a case over the high-profile accounting meltdown at AmTrust that audit reports are material to investors, its previous contrary holding highlights the seriousness of the ongoing crisis of confidence in the audit report, say attorneys at Bernstein Litowitz.