Expert Analysis

• The Rise Of Trade Secret Specificity As A Jury Question

  

  Recent federal appellate court decisions have clarified that determining sufficient particularity under the Defend Trade Secrets Act is a question of fact and will likely become a standard jury question, highlighting the need for appropriate jury instructions that explicitly address the issue, says Amy Candido at Simpson Thacher.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Networking 101

  

  Cultivating a network isn't part of the law school curriculum, but learning the soft skills needed to do so may be the key to establishing a solid professional reputation, nurturing client relationships and building business, says Sharon Crane at Practising Law Institute.

• Defeating Estoppel-Based Claims In Legal Malpractice Actions

  

  State supreme court cases from recent years have addressed whether positions taken by attorneys in an underlying lawsuit can be used against them in a subsequent legal malpractice action, providing a foundation to defeat ex-clients’ estoppel claims, says Christopher Blazejewski at Sherin and Lodgen.

• Trade Secret Rulings Reveal The Cost Of Poor Preparation

  

  Two recent federal appellate decisions show that companies must be prepared to prove their trade secrets with specificity, highlighting how an asset management program that identifies key confidential information before litigation arises can provide the clarity and documentation that courts increasingly require, say attorneys at Mintz.

• Series

  The Biz Court Digest: How It Works In Massachusetts

  

  Since its founding in 2000, the Massachusetts Business Litigation Session's expertise, procedural flexibility and litigant-friendly case management practices have contributed to the development of a robust body of commercial jurisprudence, say James Donnelly at Mirick O’Connell, Felicia Ellsworth at WilmerHale and Lisa Wood at Foley Hoag.

• Why Appellees Should Write Their Answering Brief First

  

  Though counterintuitive, appellees should consider writing their answering briefs before they’ve ever seen their opponent’s opening brief, as this practice confers numerous benefits related to argument structure, time pressures and workflow, says Joshua Sohn at the U.S. Department of Justice.

• Navigating DEA Quotas: Key To Psychedelics Industry Growth

  

  As new compounds like DOI enter the Schedule I landscape, manufacturers who anticipate U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration quota regulations, and build quota management into their broader strategy, will be best equipped to meet the growing demand, say Kimberly Chew at Husch Blackwell and Jaime Dwight at Promega.

• Series

  Mindfulness Meditation Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Mindful meditation enables me to drop the ego, and in helping me to keep sight of what’s important, permits me to learn from the other side and become a reliable counselor, says Roy Wyman at Bass Berry.

• Growth, Harmonization In Focus As Hague System Turns 100

  

  One hundred years after its establishment, the Hague System has grown into an important pillar of international design protection, offering a promising path toward even greater harmonization in design law as its geographic reach continues to expand, say attorneys at Sterne Kessler.

• Lessons From 7th Circ. Decision Affirming $183M FCA Verdict

  

  The Seventh Circuit's decision to uphold a $183 million False Claims Act award against Eli Lilly engages substantively with recurring materiality and scienter questions and provides insights into appellate review of complex trial court judgments, say Ellen London at London & Naor, Li Yu at Bernstein Litowitz and Kimberly Friday at Osborn Maledon.

• Opinion

  Punitive Damages Awards Should Be Limited To 1st Instance

  

  Recent verdicts in different cases against Johnson & Johnson and Monsanto showcase a trend of multiple punitive damages being awarded to different plaintiffs for the same course of conduct by a single defendant, a practice that should be deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, says Jacob Mihm at Polales Horton.

• How Calif. High Court Is Rethinking Forum Selection Clauses

  

  Two recent cases before the California Supreme Court show that the state is shifting toward greater enforcement of freely negotiated forum selection clauses between sophisticated parties, so litigators need to revisit old assumptions about the breadth of California's public policy exception, says Josh Patashnik at Perkins Coie.

• AI Litigation Tools Can Enhance Case Assessment, Strategy

  

  Civil litigators can use artificial intelligence tools to strengthen case assessment and aid in early strategy development, as long as they address the risks and ethical considerations that accompany these uses, say attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Attys Beware: Generative AI Can Also Hallucinate Metadata

  

  In addition to the well-known problem of AI-generated hallucinations in legal documents, AI tools can also hallucinate metadata — threatening the integrity of discovery, the reliability of evidence and the ability to definitively identify the provenance of electronic documents, say attorneys at Law & Forensics.

• Lessons From Fed. Circ. On Expert Testimony In Patent Cases

  

  Several recent decisions from the Federal Circuit are notable for their treatment of expert testimony, with relevance to the three pillars of every patent case — infringement, invalidity and damages — and offer lessons on ensuring that expert testimony is both admissible and sufficient to support the jury's verdict, say attorneys at Honigman.