Expert Analysis

• Assessing EcoFactor's Impact On Damages Experts' Opinions

  

  Though the Federal Circuit's ruling in EcoFactor v. Google gave rise to concerns that damages experts would be forced to rely on undisputed facts, recent case law suggests that those concerns are unwarranted, says Christopher Loh at Venable.

• 7 Mistakes To Avoid When Using Trial Graphics

  

  With several federal district judges recently expressing frustration with the overuse of PowerPoint slides in trial presentations, now is a good time for lawyers to assess when and how they use visuals to make sure their messages are communicated as effectively as possible, say Mark Rosman at Proskauer and Dan Bender at Digital Evidence Group.

• Defense Contractor Tips For Commercial Solutions Openings

  

  Defense contractors interested in participating in the Army’s recently announced commercial solutions opening should familiarize themselves with the process, which promotes flexibility but requires prudence in preparing proposals, negotiating award terms, and crafting supporting documents such as teaming agreements and subcontracts, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Opinion

  State Bars Need To Get Specific About AI Confidentiality

  

  Lawyers need to put actual client information into artificial intelligence tools to get their full value, but they cannot confidently do so until state bars offer clear, formal authority on which plan tiers of the three most popular generative AI tools are safe to use when sharing specific client details, says attorney Nick Berk.

• The Federal Circuit's Evolving View Of Trade Secrets

  

  In recent years, the Federal Circuit's approach to defining "readily ascertainable" information and determining sufficiency of trade secret identification has shifted, trending away from other circuits and potentially presenting a higher bar for trade secrets plaintiffs, say attorneys at MoFo.

• Human Authorship Is Still Central To Copyright Eligibility

  

  In declining to review the D.C. Circuit's ruling in Thaler v. Perlmutter — holding that a work purely generated by artificial intelligence cannot be copyrighted — the U.S. Supreme Court has reinforced the human authorship requirement, so it is critical for creators of AI-assisted projects to document their involvement, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• Series

  Alpine Skiing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Skiing has shaped habits I rely on daily as an attorney — focus, resilience and the ability to remain steady when circumstances shift rapidly — and influences the way I approach legal strategy, client counseling and teamwork, says Isaku Begert at Marshall Gerstein.

• 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.

• 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.

• PTAB Memo Recenters Discretion On US Manufacturing

  

  Read alongside recent Federal Circuit decisions, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires' memo on patent denial considerations emphasizes domestic manufacturing in a way that the International Trade Commission does not require, says Brandon Theiss at Volpe Koenig.

• 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.

• 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.

• Apple Verdict May Inform Jury Instruction In Patent Suits

  

  A Texas federal jury's recent verdict in Optis v. Apple provides an important example of how juries must be instructed when Step 2 of the Alice framework is submitted to them, with important implications for both litigators and courts in patent cases, says Joshua Reisberg at Blank Rome.

• Justices May Hesitate To Limit Courts' Arbitration Review

  

  Based on Monday's argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to preserve federal jurisdiction over arbitral award enforcement stemming from actions originated in federal court, a holding that would markedly limit the court's 2022 Walters v. Badgerow decision, says Ashwini Jayaratnam at DarrowEverett.

• Series

  Ultramarathons Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Completing a 100-mile ultramarathon was tougher, more humbling and more rewarding than I ever imagined, and the experience highlighted how long-distance running has sharpened my ability to adapt to the evolving nature of antitrust law and strengthened my resolve to handle demanding, unforeseen challenges, says Dan Oakes at Axinn.