Expert Analysis

• Calif. Justices' Ruling Reshapes Midcase Appeal Strategy

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent decision in Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants holds that voluntary dismissal cannot be used as a shortcut to appellate review of interlocutory orders, resolving a long-running appellate split and pushing litigants to use alternative procedural tools, says Josh Patashnik at Ashurst Perkins Coie.

• Reel Justice: 'Disclosure Day' Teaches Attys To Listen

  

  The underlying message in “Disclosure Day” suggests that communication often breaks down because of a failure to hear and understand, highlighting why a lawyer's ability to listen is not ancillary to their practice — it is what makes effective representation and justice possible, says Veronica Finkelstein at Widener-Delaware Law.

• Fed. Circ.'s Thermostat Ruling Holds Patent Jury Trial Lessons

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Ollnova v. Ecobee, throwing out a $11.5 million patent infringement award, clarifies key rules for jury verdict forms and sends an important message on patent subject matter eligibility, says Bijal Vakil at Skadden.

• Series

  Going To Hardcore Shows Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  While government contracts law and the hardcore scene may seem entirely unrelated, in my experience, both are about community, focus, being prepared for the unexpected and managing chaos, says Isaac Natter at Fluet.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Exposes A Flaw In Federal Trade Secrets Law

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Comet Technologies v. XP Power, addressing a difference between the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, shows why the DTSA's requirement that claimed trade secrets not be readily ascertainable is inherently problematic, say attorneys at Buchalter.

• Fla. Justices Give Trial Judges More Dismissal Discretion

  

  The Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Publix Supermarkets Inc. v. Goga confirmed that appellate courts should not apply a heightened standard when reviewing severe sanctions for fraud on the court, granting greater deference to trial courts, says Brent Hartman at RumbergerKirk.

• Opinion

  After Monsanto, Defense Bar Must Build Case Against Lohr

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto v. Durnell has helped to demolish the foundation for its problematic 1996 ruling in Medtronic v. Lohr — so now defense counsel should lay the groundwork for the high court to overturn Lohr, say attorneys at Blank Rome.

• 9th Circ. Rule Block Unlikely To Deter FinCEN Cartel Focus

  

  The Ninth Circuit recently blocked the Financial Crimes Enforcement Unit's border cash reporting rule, interpreting it as an impermissible use of an emergency anti-money laundering tool, but regulators are more likely to see the opinion as a road map for building a more defensible rule, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• Series

  Being A Sommelier Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Being a sommelier has quietly shaped how I practice law by changing the way I think, communicate and connect with people, and offers a constant reminder that expertise is about making your knowledge useful and accessible to others, says Kara Du at Sheppard.

• Series

  Teaching SEC Investigations Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Instructing a law school course on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations has made me a more thoughtful, deliberate practitioner because it requires me to continually reassess and challenge what I know about securities law enforcement, how I know it and how best to explain it, says David Chase at Miami Law.

• Monsanto Ruling Bolsters Generic Drug Labeling Preemption

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concerns herbicide labeling regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, but also carries weighty implications for preemption of state law labeling claims against drug manufacturers, say Terry Henry and Ann Querns at Blank Rome and Melanie Leney at Aurobindo Pharma.

• When Leaked Settlement Talks Complicate High-Profile Cases

  

  A recent sexual harassment case involving JPMorgan Chase highlights how leaked settlement offers can affect public perception of litigation, reminding parties that a confidentiality label does not automatically create an enforceable obligation because evidentiary exclusion is limited and purpose-specific, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• How High Court Pepsi Case Could Brew TM Strategy Shift

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in RiseandShine v. PepsiCo will determine whether a judge or jury decides trademark strength in infringement disputes, which could meaningfully change early-stage motion practice, discovery and what evidence is needed to prove a mark is strong, says Rachel Scobie at Merchant & Gould.

• Discovery Ruling Shows How Extant Rules Mesh With AI Tools

  

  A California federal court’s recent ruling in Schulte v. LinkedIn reinforces that existing discovery rules can and should accommodate emerging artificial intelligence technologies, providing litigants with confidence that well-designed AI-enabled workflows can satisfy reasonableness and proportionality standards, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• Series

  Judges On AI: Examining Administrative, Organizational Uses

  

  U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas examines how artificial intelligence could transform a court's ability to deal with administrative work and organize materials when preparing for hearings or drafting opinions, thereby affording judges more time to resolve contested issues.