Expert Analysis

• Have Iconic Twitter Trademarks Been Abandoned?

  

  A set of lawsuits concerning the status of X Corp.'s "Twitter" and "tweet" trademarks, which will potentially be considered abandoned in July, will provide instructive insights into how trademark owners can defend against abandonment claims, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• Google's Scraping Suit Asks How Far DMCA Protections Go

  

  A California federal court's decision in Google v. SerpApi will spotlight a long-developing judicial split over how to apply the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s ban on circumventing a copyright holder’s access controls, an increasingly important point in litigation over web scraping and artificial intelligence training, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.

• Series

  Podcasting Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Podcasting has changed how I ask questions and connect with people, sharpening my ability to listen without interrupting or prejudging, and bringing me closer to what law is meant to be: a human profession grounded in understanding, judgment and trust, says Donna DiMaggio Berger at Becker.

• Del. Coinbase Outcome May Have Been Different In Texas

  

  The Delaware Court of Chancery's recent decision in Grabski v. Andreessen, finding that a member of the Coinbase special litigation committee was not independent, provides guidance for Delaware boards regarding the formation, composition and operation of SLCs, while offering a counterpoint to the procedures available to Texas-incorporated companies, says John Lawrence at Baker Botts.

• Share Repurchases Leave Cos. Susceptible To Litigation

  

  Because share repurchases bring greater ownership, which typically brings greater voting power, they can have serious implications for corporate control, which can raise questions about the unpaid benefits to some shareholders and lead to securities class actions, says Amit Bubna at Bates White.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Evinces Tightening Of Nonmedical Hardship

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Vilchis-Gomez v. Bondi illustrates how a series of immigration decisions are transforming the extreme hardship defense to removal into a de facto medical necessity requirement, but practitioners can push back by continuing to assert long-standing precedents and building comprehensive records, says Abdoul Konare at Konare Law.

• Del. Justices' Upholding Of SB 21 Gives Cos. Needed Clarity

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Rutledge v. Clearway Energy — upholding 2025 corporate law amendments enacted through S.B. 21, which clarified safe harbor protections and key terms — may help stem the DExit movement, whose proponents have claimed unpredictability in Delaware courts, say attorneys at Nelson Mullins.

• Unique Issues Facing Brand-Compounder Patent Litigation

  

  Recent litigation and potential enforcement action against Hims & Hers Health raise questions about how compounders and branded pharmaceuticals companies would be positioned in patent litigation as compared to generics companies, which would require strategies different from those that would be used in traditional Hatch-Waxman Act litigation, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• Series

  Volunteering With Scouts Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Serving as an assistant scoutmaster for my son’s troop reaffirmed several skills and principles crucial to lawyering — from the importance of disconnecting to the value of morality, says Michael Warren at McManis Faulkner.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: In Court, It's About Storytelling

  

  Law school provides doctrine, cases and hypotheticals, but when lawyers step into the courtroom, they must learn the importance of clarity, credibility, memorability and preparation — in other words, how to tell simple, effective stories, say Nicholas Steverson and Danielle Trujillo at Wheeler Trigg, and Lisa DeCaro at Courtroom Performance.

• How Recent Del. Rulings Clarify M&A Deal Fraud Carveouts

  

  Two recent Delaware decisions have provided clarity regarding when a party can or cannot rely on representations made during the course of an M&A transaction, particularly on the scope and enforceability of antireliance provisions, and on representations they knew or should have known were false, says Anthony Boccamazzo at Olshan Frome.

• High Court's 'Skinny Label' Case May Tackle Wider Questions

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Hikma v. Amarin will have important ramifications for broader debates over what defines a generic version of a drug, and the pending case is already altering patent practice, say attorneys at Taft.

• Aligning Microsoft Tools With NYC Bar AI Recording Guidance

  

  The New York City Bar Association’s recently issued formal opinion, providing ethical guidance on artificial intelligence-assisted recording, transcription and summarization, raises immediate questions about data governance and e-discovery for companies that use Microsoft 365 and Copilot, say Staci Kaliner, Martin Tully and John Collins at Redgrave.

• Where 5th Circ. Ruling Fits In ERISA Arbitration Landscape

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Parrott v. International Bancshares, holding that an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan may consent to arbitration, must be understood against the backdrop of a developing body of appellate authority addressing ERISA arbitration, say attorneys at Gibson Dunn.

• 5 Different AI Systems Raise Distinct Privilege Issues

  

  A New York federal court’s recent U.S. v. Heppner decision, holding that a defendant’s use of Claude was not privileged, only addressed one narrow artificial intelligence system, but lawyers must recognize that the spectrum of AI tools raises different confidentiality and privilege questions, says Heidi Nadel at HP.