Expert Analysis

• Pa. Anti-SLAPP Ruling Shows Risks Of Atty Defamation Suits

  

  A Pennsylvania federal court’s recent Lento Law Group v. Estrada ruling addressed an unsettled question about mandatory fee-shifting provisions in the state’s anti-SLAPP law — and illustrates why attorneys should think twice before suing former clients over negative online reviews, say attorneys at Pietragallo Gordon.

• 9th Circ. 'Bad Spaniels' Ruling Rewrites TM Dilution Playbook

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling that each element of the Jack Daniel's packaging parodied by the Bad Spaniels dog toy must be independently assessed for fame narrows trademark owners' ability to use a flagship mark's halo effect to protect the entire brand from tarnishment, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• Fed. Circ. In July: Meeting The Enablement Requirement

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision in Wyeth v. AstraZeneca last month exemplifies when a generalized conception of an invention is insufficient to enable the full scope of asserted patent infringement claims, and may lead to more enablement challenges, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Calif. Ruling Opens Del. Cos. Up To Stockholder Inspection

  

  A California appellate court's recent decision in Salamon v. Orchid Global underscores that despite last year's amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law, Delaware companies with principal operations in California remain subject to California's broader and more stockholder-protective inspection regime, say attorneys at Sheppard.

• What 9th Circ. Devas Ruling Means For AI Infrastructure Deals

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent confirmation of a $2 billion arbitration award in Devas Multimedia's arbitration against a state-owned commercial arm of India’s space agency creates a cross-border enforcement road map for disputes that are bound to arise from the current generation of artificial intelligence infrastructure deals, says Fernanda Merouco at Davis Wright.

• 9th Circ. Wage Ruling Shows Arbitration Pacts Are Still Useful

  

  After years of uncertainty for California employers, the Ninth Circuit’s recent Cocom v. ABM Aviation decision signals that workplace arbitration agreements remain a powerful and enforceable tool — if thoughtfully drafted and employment-focused, says Benjamin Runge at Thompson Coburn.

• Series

  Taekwondo Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Taekwondo has taught me to recognize when to fight for a position and when to focus on finding a solution, and that the best outcomes are often achieved by solving problems — all of which has improved my work as a bankruptcy lawyer, mediator and Subchapter V trustee, says Amy Denton Mayer at Berger Singerman.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: August Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses seven recent rulings from cases involving Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction, appellate jurisdiction, attorney fees and employment rights.

• 3rd Circ. Hotel Ruling Flags Key Issues In Dynamic Pricing

  

  The Third Circuit's recent decision in Cornish-Adebiyi v. Caesars Entertainment relies on allegations that competitors used nonpublic data to set real-time rates considered exorbitant, highlighting both the potential risks and substantial benefits of utilizing emerging technologies, say attorneys at Baker McKenzie.

• 4th Circ. Class Cert. Ruling Offers Tips For Damages Experts

  

  The Fourth Circuit's recent decision reversing class certification in litigation against Boeing raises the cost of a bare-bones damages model proposal for plaintiffs, but it also clarifies what a defensible proposal should contain, say Alok Khare and Erica Rose at FTI Consulting.

• Opinion

  'Plain Meaning' Requires Plainer Meaning In IP Litigation

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Socket Solutions v. Import Global highlights the frequent ambiguity surrounding courts' references to "plain meaning" in patent claim construction — an ambiguity that should be resolved by courts, not litigants, say attorneys at Klarquist Sparkman.

• What To Know As Legal Duty To Consider AI Takes Shape

  

  While the U.K. Jurisdiction Taskforce’s recent statement on liability for artificial intelligence harms is nonbinding for both U.K. and U.S. lawyers, it highlights the importance of being able to distinguish between the availability of a tool and a professional obligation to use it, say Jonny Frank and Michael Costa at StoneTurn.

• Patent Ruling Shows Concrete Tech Solution Key To Eligibility

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent Ceiva Opco v. Amazon.com decision offers an important reminder that software-related inventions can remain patent eligible when they claim a concrete technological solution to a specific problem, says Irah Donner at Manatt.

• Appellate Vape Rulings May Expand State Regulation Powers

  

  Two recent federal appeals courts decisions rejecting Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preemption challenges to state electronic nicotine delivery systems directory laws signal an emerging appellate consensus that could significantly expand states' power to regulate vaping product sales where federal enforcement falls short, say attorneys at Troutman.

• How Solar Fraud Case Affects Lender Oversight Of Dealers

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to review the Third Circuit's ruling in Migliore v. Sunlight Financial means that residential solar finance companies are protected from vicarious liability for deceptive acts by independent solar dealers — but lenders must still take steps to guard against dealer misconduct, says Rand Manasse at Green Lane Partners.