Expert Analysis

• 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.

• How 'Settled Expectations' Affect Amazon's Patent Program

  

  Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to weigh in on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's "settled expectations" framework could have significant consequences for how patent owners and accused sellers approach disputes in Amazon's patent evaluation process, says Barry Greenbaum at Olshan Frome.

• 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

  2nd Circ. Tylenol Ruling Misapplies Daubert Gatekeeping

  

  The Second Circuit's recent ruling in Rutledge v. Walgreen Co., holding that a lower court should not have excluded experts alleging links between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism, threatens to swallow the Daubert standard by limiting courts' consideration of scientific consensus in assessing reliability of expert testimony, say attorneys at Benesch.

• Limiting Employer Risk If Calif. Case Upends Time Rounding

  

  The California Supreme Court's holdings in recent years suggest that it may tighten the rules for — or even eliminate — time clock rounding when it decides Camp v. Home Depot, so employers should consider taking preemptive steps to guard against large potential liability, says Jacqueline Crispino at the Jhaveri-Weeks Firm.

• AG Watch: Va. Auto Renewal Law Clears Enforcement Path

  

  The most consequential aspect of recent amendments to Virginia's automatic renewal law is the enforcement authority it creates, giving the attorney general a clear statutory pathway to pursue cases involving subscription-related compliance failures under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, says Chuck Slemp at Cozen O'Connor.