Expert Analysis

• How Justices' Habeas Ruling Limits Compassionate Release

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in Fernandez v. U.S. that a federal prisoner who challenges their conviction's validity must do so through habeas, not compassionate release, considerably narrows the universe of arguments that can support a sentence reduction, says attorney Elizabeth Franklin-Best.

• The Banking Issue Hiding In Justices' Freight Broker Ruling

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent liability preemption ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport was front-page news for the transportation industry, the banking industry seems to have missed that the decision exposes freight broker lenders to credit, documentation and litigation issues, say attorneys at Barack Ferrazzano.

• Insurance Ruling Extends NY Bad Faith To 3rd-Party Coverage

  

  In Renergy v. Mt. Hawley Insurance, a New York federal court recently granted a policyholder leave to amend its complaint to clarify a bad faith claims handling cause of action, confirming, after nearly 20 years, that bad faith damages are available in the third-party liability context, say attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Opinion

  Rule Of Law Requires Gov't Engagement With Bar, Not Retreat

  

  A federal agency's absence from national and local bar conferences, most recently illustrated by the U.S. Department of Justice's withdrawal from a New York City Bar Association white collar conference, disserves the bar, the government lawyers themselves and, ultimately, the administration of justice, says Muhammad Faridi at Linklaters.

• Fed. Circ. Clarifies Standard For Contesting CICA Overrides

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent holding in Life Science Logistics strengthens the hand of protesters facing an override of the Competition in Contracting Act stay, and a Court of Federal Claims decision the same day demonstrates that how a protester frames its requested relief remains critically important, says Richard Arnholt at Bass Berry.

• The Paradoxical Duty To Adopt AI When You Can't Bill For It

  

  Both billing for hours saved using artificial intelligence and preserving billable time by not adopting AI may violate rules of professional conduct, but until bar associations' ethics rules catch up to this emerging economic dilemma, firms must decide how to adjust fee structures themselves, says Ines Lassalle at Peyrot & Associates.

• 4 Emerging Limits Of Employer Mental Health Notice Defense

  

  A California appeals court's recent decision in Husband v. Target, addressing when an employer knows about an employee's undisclosed disability, leaves open questions about how changes in mental health awareness and workforce monitoring tools may raise the bar for what employers can claim not to know, says Benjamin Heller at RFZ Law.

• Raptors Ruling Shows Risks Of Calif. Enviro Suit Intervention

  

  Intervention in California environmental litigation can allow businesses to help defend agency approvals, but after a state appeals court's recent ruling in Raptors Are the Solution v. CropLife America, it is clear that intervention also carries a price — and that courts will hold parties accountable for the full arc of their litigation conduct, says Thierry Montoya at FBT Gibbons.

• A Decade Later, Escobar Is Still Shaping FCA Cases

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision 10 years ago in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar changed the way in which lower courts evaluate False Claims Act cases — and the ruling remains vital in nearly every FCA case filed today, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• Sripetch May Prove To Be An Empty Victory For The SEC

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission held that the SEC need not prove pecuniary harm for disgorgement, but if the commission must still identify victims and distribute funds in a compensatory way, it faces the same economic problem as before the ruling, says Erin Smith at Compass Lexecon.

• 9th Circ. Cooler Ruling Chills 1st Mover Lanham Act Claims

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Vericool World v. Igloo Products that Vericool's claim of being first-to-market with an ecocooler was not actionable under the Lanham Act largely foreclosed false advertising litigation over first mover status, so potential plaintiffs should instead look to patent counseling or intellectual property strategy for these claims, say attorneys at Manatt.

• Mapping 5 Fronts Of The Prediction Markets Regulatory Battle

  

  The legal framework governing prediction markets is under simultaneous challenge in five independent areas, and the outcomes will determine not just who can operate prediction markets, but the compliance obligations of every participant in the ecosystem, says Ivor Wolk at Manatt.

• Patent Ruling Highlights Risks Of Late Inventorship Fixes

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Implicit v. Sonos demonstrates the risk of forfeiture with retroactive correction of inventorship in inter partes review proceedings, with a clear message to the patent community that potential inventorship issues should be considered at every stage of a patent's life cycle, say attorneys at BCLP.

• Adjusting IPR Tactics As Google Fights 'Settled Expectations'

  

  Google’s petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to scrutinize the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's so-called settled expectations practice underscores why accused infringers facing older asserted patents should treat discretionary denial as a case-dispositive risk from day one, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

• 3 Misconceptions About Justices' FCC Fines Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's June 4 Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T decision rejecting AT&T’s and Verizon’s argument that the commission's forfeiture process violates the Seventh Amendment has yielded three common reactions that misunderstand the decision as a matter of law and how the FCC actually operates, says Samuel Feder at Jenner & Block.