Expert Analysis

• Fla. Driver Ruling Shows Renewed Focus On Privacy Standing

  

  A Florida federal court's recent dismissal of a class action alleging that private driving records had been improperly used in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act suggests that companies defending against privacy class actions in Florida may reconsider Article III challenges at the dismissal stage, say attorneys at Sidley.

• Vax Ruling Offers Employer Tips For Handling Political Speech

  

  A California appeals court's recent decision in Rademacher v. ABC, rejecting a "General Hospital" actor's suit alleging he was terminated for opposing a vaccine policy, demonstrates the importance of the employer's process, including neutral policies, documentation, and evidence of who knew what and when, say attorneys at Krevolin Horst.

• O Brother, Where Art DAO? Jurisdiction Issues Abound

  

  While there is a dearth of decisions examining a decentralized autonomous organization's citizenship for diversity jurisdiction purposes, Second Circuit case law has defined citizenship for other unincorporated entities, which may guide how courts evaluate an increasing number of cases involving DAOs, says Michael Mix at Morrison Cohen.

• Protecting AI-Driven Innovation In Life Sciences IP

  

  Recent developments, including the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's evolving inventorship standards, and the impact of artificial intelligence on the "person of ordinary skill in the art" standard demand that life sciences companies elevate AI patent strategy to a top priority, says Sandra Haberny at Quinn Emanuel.

• 2nd Circ. Ruling Notably Limits Sentencing Courts' Discretion

  

  The Second Circuit’s recent decision in U.S. v. Dralle clarifies the bounds of sentencing courts’ ability to consider uncharged or co-defendant conduct without tying it to statutory sentencing factors, and it may have broader implications for limiting loss attribution in white collar and other criminal cases, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• High Court's Hikma Decision Reshapes 'Skinny Label' Suits

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hikma v. Amarin marks a significant victory for generic drug manufacturers, but rather than putting an end to so-called skinny label inducement claims, it narrows and refocuses them, say attorneys at Sterne Kessler.

• Opinion

  At High Court, Oil Cos.' Suncor Preemption Claims Fall Short

  

  In Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, oil and gas companies argue that municipalities' climate deception claims are equivalent to emissions standards for their industry — but the suit is ultimately incapable of imposing such standards, say Thomas McGarity at the University of Texas School of Law and James Goodwin at the Center for Progressive Reform.

• 3 Disgorgement Questions Linger After Justices' SEC Ruling

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission avoided placing new limits on the SEC’s disgorgement powers, it passed over several questions, including whether the commission can seek disgorgement when returning the money to investors isn't possible, says David Slovick at Kopecky Schumacher.

• Checking For AI Errors Is Now A Two-Way Street

  

  A handful of recent federal and state cases demonstrate the importance of checking for errors generated by artificial intelligence not only in your own court submissions, but also your opponent's, as well as when catching opposing counsel's AI mistakes could result in an award for attorney fees, says Tamara Barago at Hollingsworth.

• Opinion

  Federal Circuit Should Implement Mini En Banc Process

  

  To fulfill its mission of uniformity in patent law while avoiding the challenges of en banc hearings, the Federal Circuit should institute mini en bancs — allowing regular three-judge panels to exercise en banc powers unless a majority of the court says otherwise, says Joshua Sohn at the U.S. Department of Justice.

• What's Next After Justices' Last-Mile Driver Arbitration Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Flowers Foods v. Brock, refusing to narrow the scope of a Federal Arbitration Act exemption for workers engaged in interstate commerce, gives previously unprotected workers access to litigation, but preserves two potentially powerful arguments for future proceedings, say attorneys at Husch Blackwell.

• Series

  The Biz Court Digest: Shoring Up Corporate Law In Maryland

  

  Launched more than 20 years ago to improve complex corporate adjudication, Maryland's Business and Technology Case Management Program has been a solid success in some areas, but there always is room for improvement, says Bill Krulak at Miles & Stockbridge.

• How End Of SEC 'Gag Rule' Affects Free Speech Certiorari Bid

  

  The Securities and Exchange Commission's recent rescission of the so-called gag rule, which forbade defendants in settlements from denying the SEC’s allegations, may sway the outcome of a petition to the Supreme Court in a case challenging the rule on First Amendment grounds, say attorneys at Troutman.

• 2nd Circ.'s Embedded Video Ruling May Protect Publishers

  

  The Second Circuit's recent decision in Richardson v. Townsquare, dismissing an infringement claim arising from an embedding of a YouTube-hosted interview, reaffirms a potent defense for publishers who regularly use social media platforms' embed functionality, says Amanda Harris at Jassy Vick.

• Federal Officer Removal After Justices' La. Pollution Ruling

  

  In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Chevron USA v. Plaquemines Parish, companies seeking to use federal officer removal to move litigation out of state court should ask three questions, focusing on government contract language, federally directed activity and related conduct, say attorneys at Hollingsworth.