Expert Analysis

• Fed. Circ. In June: When Courts Can't Correct Patent Errors

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Enanta v. Pfizer explores and clarifies the limits of what can be corrected in a patent application, even if the error is obvious, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Challenging Detention After 5th Circ. Ends Bond Clocks

  

  After the vacatur of the Fifth Circuit’s holding that the U.S. Constitution requires bond hearings for detained noncriminal noncitizens, practitioners should go back to filing habeas petitions, pending the court's en banc rehearing, says Kemal Hepsen at Mandamus Lawyers.

• Patent Eligibility Bulletin: New USPTO Guidance And AI Risks

  

  In the second quarter of 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility declarations in line with its increasingly permissive patent eligibility stance, while the Federal Circuit rigorously applied the Alice framework in a decision that highlighted risks facing patent claims that utilize artificial intelligence and machine learning, say attorneys at Banner Witcoff.

• State Of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Illinois

  

  The second quarter of 2026 featured a trio of auto insurance opinions from Illinois' appellate courts, addressing a notice requirement, narrowing insurers' exposure for delayed payment of underinsured motorist claims, and creating a district split on coverage for employee-drivers under employers' policies, says Matthew Fortin at BatesCarey.

• Why Courts Are Pushing Back On Greenwashing Laws

  

  Recent Fourth Circuit and California federal court decisions blocking state greenwashing statutes on First Amendment grounds reveal a tension at the heart of environmental marketing regulation — while states want clarity, courts aren't prepared to let legislatures flatly ban categories of truthful commercial speech, say attorneys at DLA Piper.

• 11th Circ. Opioid Appeal May Shift Public Nuisance Coverage

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent ruling certifying to the Florida and Georgia Supreme Courts the question of whether insurers must provide coverage against suits claiming policyholders improperly distributed opioids may ultimately result in a counterbalance to the Delaware line of cases denying coverage for government opioid suits, say attorneys at Pillsbury.

• Series

  Teaching SEC Investigations Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Instructing a law school course on U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations has made me a more thoughtful, deliberate practitioner because it requires me to continually reassess and challenge what I know about securities law enforcement, how I know it and how best to explain it, says David Chase at Miami Law.

• Monsanto Ruling Bolsters Generic Drug Labeling Preemption

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell concerns herbicide labeling regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, but also carries weighty implications for preemption of state law labeling claims against drug manufacturers, say Terry Henry and Ann Querns at Blank Rome and Melanie Leney at Aurobindo Pharma.

• Justices' Tax Sale Ruling Tees Up Auction Fairness Battles

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pung v. Isabella County, Michigan, that taxpayers are not entitled to fair market value of real property seized to satisfy a tax debt shifts attention to the fairness of state and local auction procedures, and whether taxpayers claiming surplus proceeds face unwarranted hurdles, say attorneys at Miller Canfield.

• Why The 2nd Circ. Upheld Beneficial Ownership Blockers

  

  The Second Circuit recently held that a properly drafted contractual blocker — which caps an investor's beneficial ownership below 10% and automatically voids any transaction that would breach the cap — shields the investor from Section 16(b) liability, demonstrating that blockers have teeth, say attorneys at Sheppard.

• Patent Eligibility Reforms Keep Chasing The Wrong Fixes

  

  Repeated efforts to create a consistent, predictable patent eligibility standard under Section 101 have centered on replacing judge-made exceptions with new statutory language, but the better fix is to align examination standards with how courts actually apply eligibility doctrine, says former Patent Trial and Appeal Board judge Amee Shah.

• Opinion

  Qualified Immunity Bill's Reach Goes Beyond Federal Officers

  

  The federal Qualified Immunity Abolition Act, introduced earlier this year and described by the bill sponsors as a federal-officer measure, would in actuality reach the entire universe of Section 1983 defendants, a distinction that matters as much to defense counsel as to plaintiffs, says attorney V. James DeSimone.

• Where The Justices Aligned In Appellate Authority Ruling

  

  The real story of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., finding that a doctrine designed to curtail duplicative litigation prevents federal district courts from reviewing state court decisions, is in how the justices together revisited an obscure, century-old jurisdictional doctrine, says Alex Dimitrief at Zeughauser Group.

• How High Court Pepsi Case Could Brew TM Strategy Shift

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's forthcoming decision in RiseandShine v. PepsiCo will determine whether a judge or jury decides trademark strength in infringement disputes, which could meaningfully change early-stage motion practice, discovery and what evidence is needed to prove a mark is strong, says Rachel Scobie at Merchant & Gould.

• State Of Insurance: Q2 Notes From Pennsylvania

  

  Todd Leon at Marshall Dennehey highlights notable second-quarter insurance developments in Pennsylvania, including federal court opinions providing guidance on first-party and third-party insurance coverage principles, and a pending bill seeking to regulate health insurers' use of artificial intelligence.