Expert Analysis

• When Your Client Insists On Testifying In A Criminal Case

  

  Speculation that former President Donald Trump could take the stand in any of the four criminal cases he faces serves as a reminder for counsel to consider their ethical obligations when a client insists on testifying, including the attorney’s duty of candor to the court and the depth of their discussions with clients, says Marissa Kingman at Fox Rothschild.

• Tips On Numerical Range From Fed. Circ. Philip Morris Ruling

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent RAI v. Philip Morris decision that a patent provided sufficient written description to support a claimed numerical range offers several takeaways for practitioners, including the need for a cautious approach to criticism of ranges, say attorneys at BCLP.

• How Calif. Video Recording Ruling May Affect Insured Exams

  

  A recent California appellate decision, Myasnyankin v. Nationwide, allowing policyholders to video record all parties to an insurance examination under oath, has changed the rules of the road for EUOs and potentially opened Pandora's box for future disputes, say John Edson and Preston Bennett at Sheppard Mullin.

• Fed. Circ. Patent Lesson: No Contradiction, No Indefiniteness

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Maxwell v. Amperex Technology highlights the complexities of construing patent claims when seemingly contradictory limitations are present, and that when a narrowing limitation overrides a broader one, they do not necessarily contradict each other, says Roy Wepner at Kaplan Breyer.

• 11th Circ. FMLA Ruling Deepens Divide Over Causation

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent ruling in Lapham v. Walgreen distinguishes the circuit as the loudest advocate for the but-for causation standard for assessing Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claims, though employers in other jurisdictions may encounter less favorable standards and the U.S. Supreme Court will likely have to address the circuit split eventually, say attorneys at Benesch.

• 3 Notification Pitfalls To Avoid With Arbitration Provisions

  

  In Lipsett v. Popular Bank, the Second Circuit found that a bank's arbitration provision was unenforceable due to insufficient notice to a customer that he was bound by the agreement, highlighting the importance of adequate communication of arbitration provisions, and customers' options for opting out, say attorneys at Covington.

• Why Preemption Args Wouldn't Stall Trump Hush-Money Case

  

  With former President Donald Trump's New York hush-money criminal trial weeks away, some speculate that he may soon move to stay the case on preemption grounds, but under the Anti-Injunction Act and well-settled case law, that motion would likely be quickly denied, says former New York Supreme Court Justice Ethan Greenberg, now at Anderson Kill.

• Golf Course Copyright Bill Implications Go Beyond The Green

  

  A new federal bill, the BIRDIE Act, introduced in February would extend intellectual property protections to golf course designers but could undercut existing IP case law and raise broader questions about the scope of copyright protection for works that involve living elements or nonhuman authorship, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• BIPA's Statutory Exemptions Post-Healthcare Ruling

  

  The Illinois Supreme Court's November opinion in Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, which held that the Biometric Information Privacy Act's healthcare exemption also applies when information is collected from healthcare workers, is a major win for healthcare defendants that resolves an important question of statutory interpretation, say attorneys at Quinn Emanuel.

• 2nd Circ.'s Nine West Ruling Clarifies Safe Harbor Confusion

  

  The Second Circuit’s recent ruling in Nine West’s Chapter 11 suit clarifies that courts in the circuit will apply a transfer-by-transfer analysis to determine the applicability of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, and that to be safe harbored, a financial institution must act as an agent with respect to the specific transfer at issue, says Leonardo Trivigno at Carter Ledyard.

• Opinion

  9th Circ. Nazi Art Theft Ruling Is Bad For Repatriation Cases

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, holding that a Spanish museum doesn't have to return a Nazi-stolen painting to the original Jewish owners, spells trouble for future heirloom repatriation cases, which hinge on similar archaic laws, say Andrea Perez and Josh Sherman at Carrington Coleman.

• Litigation Inspiration: A Source Of Untapped Fulfillment

  

  As increasing numbers of attorneys struggle with stress and mental health issues, business litigators can find protection against burnout by remembering their important role in society — because fulfillment in one’s work isn’t just reserved for public interest lawyers, say Bennett Rawicki and Peter Bigelow at Hilgers Graben.

• Series

  Skiing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  A lifetime of skiing has helped me develop important professional skills, and taught me that embracing challenges with a spirit of adventure can allow lawyers to push boundaries, expand their capabilities and ultimately excel in their careers, says Andrea Przybysz at Tucker Ellis.

• Opinion

  High Court Should Endorse Insurer Standing In Bankruptcy

  

  In Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine bankruptcy standing doctrine as applied to insurers in mass tort cases, and should use the opportunity to eliminate spurious standing roadblocks to resolving insurer objections on their merits, says Frank Perch at White and Williams.

• High Court Social Media Speech Ruling Could Implicate AI

  

  In Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether certain state laws can restrict content moderation by social media platforms, but the eventual decision could also provide insight into whether the first amendment protects artificial intelligence speech, say Joseph Meadows and Quyen Dang at GRSM50.