Expert Analysis

• Mich. Ruling Gives Consumer Protection Law Its Teeth Back

  

  The Michigan Supreme Court's recent decision in Attorney General v. Eli Lilly, overruling key holdings in two earlier cases, means that Michigan businesses can no longer defeat allegations of deceptive conduct under the state's consumer protection law simply by pointing to any governmental regulation of the business, say attorneys at DiCello Levitt.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Surviving A Long Trial

  

  Most of law school trial advocacy is geared toward the sprint of trying a short case, but beyond managing a cross-examination or closing argument, effectively handling the marathon of a lengthy trial requires the ability to maintain composure, organization and credibility with the jury, says Mihir Elchuri at Hirschler.

• A Deepening Patent-Trademark Divide Over Irreparable Harm

  

  Recent Federal Circuit decisions, along with legislation being considered in Congress, may exacerbate the differences that patent owners and trademark owners face when seeking to stop infringement before irreparable harm is caused, say attorneys at BakerHostetler.

• 7th Circ. Ruling May Reduce Litigation Risk For Text Marketers

  

  The recent Seventh Circuit holding in Steidinger v. Blackstone Medical Services that unwanted marketing text messages are not telephone calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act may strengthen companies' responses to presuit demand letters and early-stage litigation claims premised on do-not-call text theories, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• How Calif. Ruling Defines Drug Cos.' R&D Responsibilities

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent ruling in the Gilead Tenofovir Cases, which held that drugmakers have no duty to bring allegedly safer alternatives to market more quickly, is a win for pharmaceutical companies — but not a grant of blanket immunity for all early-stage drug development decisions, say attorneys at King & Spalding.

• Whiskey Business: Parsing The 9th Circ. Jack Daniel's IP Toss

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent ruling in VIP Products v. Jack Daniel's, holding a toy did not tarnish the whiskey maker's trademarks, gives fact-finders great latitude by showing that there may exist no categories of per se tarnishing content, says attorney Sara Gold.

• 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.

• 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.

• 5 IP Licensing Lessons From Fed. Circ. Asphalt Ruling

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in A.L.M. v. Zydex, concerning infringement of asphalt-related patents, clarifies what licensing terms are considered sufficiently exclusionary for constitutional standing, and provides helpful guidance for ensuring the enforceability of patent rights, say attorneys at Sterne Kessler.

• 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.

• Opinion

  Birthright Citizenship Dissents Belie Originalist Interpretation

  

  The three dissents in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent birthright citizenship decision clashed with originalist readings of the Constitution, applying the 14th Amendment more narrowly than its drafters, and by applying contemporary and living document approaches to constitutional interpretation, says Ediberto Roman at Florida International University.

• Navigating The Limits Of Calif. Justices' Public Pension Ruling

  

  Despite the California Supreme Court's recent holding that counties and cities wield discretion over classification and salary decisions for their public retirement board staff, it is important to remember that such authority is not unchecked as unreasonable rejections remain subject to judicial review, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• 3 Rulings Show High Court's Transnational Litigation Stance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent term closed with three consequential decisions for transnational litigation that illustrate the court's readiness to enforce a Congress-created cause of action for overseas conduct and unwillingness to create this liability itself, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• Del. High Court Ruling Signals Next Post-Jarkesy Phase

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court recently ruled in Swan Energy v. Investor Protection Unit that the jury trial principles underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jarkesy opinion do not compel the same result under the state's constitution, offering state courts a road map for the next phase of administrative enforcement litigation, says Benjamin Lajoie at Nelson Mullins.