Expert Analysis

• Spartan Arbitration Tactics Against Well-Funded Opponents

  

  Like the ancient Spartans who held off a numerically superior Persian army at the Battle of Thermopylae, trial attorneys and clients faced with arbitration against an opponent with a bigger war chest can take a strategic approach to create a pass to victory, say Kostas Katsiris and Benjamin Argyle at Venable.

• The Future Of ERISA If High Court Ends Chevron Deference

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decisions in two cases involving fishing company challenges to regulatory requirements could weaken or repeal Chevron deference, meaning U.S. Department of Labor regulations adopted under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act may be heavily scrutinized, modified or vacated by federal courts, say Naina Kamath and Julie Stapel at Morgan Lewis.

• Assessing 2 Years Of High Court's Arbitration Waiver Ruling

  

  In the two years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morgan v. Sundance, clarifying that no special rules apply to waiver of arbitration provisions, the ruling has had immediate ramifications in federal courts, but it may take some time for the effects to be felt on other federal issues and in state courts, say attorneys at Norton Rose.

• Risks Of Nonmutual Offensive Collateral Estoppel In MDLs

  

  After the Supreme Court declined to review the Sixth Circuit's ruling in the E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. personal injury litigation, nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel could show up in more MDLs, and transform the loss of a single MDL bellwether trial into a de facto classwide decision that binds thousands of other MDL cases, say Chantale Fiebig and Luke Sullivan at Weil Gotshal.

• Infringement Policy Lessons From 4th Circ. Sony Music Ruling

  

  The Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Sony Music v. Cox Communications, which in part held that the internet service provider was liable for contributing to music copyright infringement, highlights the importance of reasonable policies to terminate repeat infringers, and provides guidance for litigating claims of secondary liability, say Benjamin Marks and Alexandra Blankman at Weil.

• What Recent Study Shows About AI's Promise For Legal Tasks

  

  Amid both skepticism and excitement about the promise of generative artificial intelligence in legal contexts, the first randomized controlled trial studying its impact on basic lawyering tasks shows mixed but promising results, and underscores the need for attorneys to proactively engage with AI, says Daniel Schwarcz at University of Minnesota Law School.

• When Your Client Insists On Testifying In A Criminal Case

  

  Speculation that former President Donald Trump could take the stand in any of the four criminal cases he faces serves as a reminder for counsel to consider their ethical obligations when a client insists on testifying, including the attorney’s duty of candor to the court and the depth of their discussions with clients, says Marissa Kingman at Fox Rothschild.

• Tips On Numerical Range From Fed. Circ. Philip Morris Ruling

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent RAI v. Philip Morris decision that a patent provided sufficient written description to support a claimed numerical range offers several takeaways for practitioners, including the need for a cautious approach to criticism of ranges, say attorneys at BCLP.

• How Calif. Video Recording Ruling May Affect Insured Exams

  

  A recent California appellate decision, Myasnyankin v. Nationwide, allowing policyholders to video record all parties to an insurance examination under oath, has changed the rules of the road for EUOs and potentially opened Pandora's box for future disputes, say John Edson and Preston Bennett at Sheppard Mullin.

• Fed. Circ. Patent Lesson: No Contradiction, No Indefiniteness

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Maxwell v. Amperex Technology highlights the complexities of construing patent claims when seemingly contradictory limitations are present, and that when a narrowing limitation overrides a broader one, they do not necessarily contradict each other, says Roy Wepner at Kaplan Breyer.

• 11th Circ. FMLA Ruling Deepens Divide Over Causation

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent ruling in Lapham v. Walgreen distinguishes the circuit as the loudest advocate for the but-for causation standard for assessing Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claims, though employers in other jurisdictions may encounter less favorable standards and the U.S. Supreme Court will likely have to address the circuit split eventually, say attorneys at Benesch.

• 3 Notification Pitfalls To Avoid With Arbitration Provisions

  

  In Lipsett v. Popular Bank, the Second Circuit found that a bank's arbitration provision was unenforceable due to insufficient notice to a customer that he was bound by the agreement, highlighting the importance of adequate communication of arbitration provisions, and customers' options for opting out, say attorneys at Covington.

• Why Preemption Args Wouldn't Stall Trump Hush-Money Case

  

  With former President Donald Trump's New York hush-money criminal trial weeks away, some speculate that he may soon move to stay the case on preemption grounds, but under the Anti-Injunction Act and well-settled case law, that motion would likely be quickly denied, says former New York Supreme Court Justice Ethan Greenberg, now at Anderson Kill.

• Golf Course Copyright Bill Implications Go Beyond The Green

  

  A new federal bill, the BIRDIE Act, introduced in February would extend intellectual property protections to golf course designers but could undercut existing IP case law and raise broader questions about the scope of copyright protection for works that involve living elements or nonhuman authorship, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• BIPA's Statutory Exemptions Post-Healthcare Ruling

  

  The Illinois Supreme Court's November opinion in Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, which held that the Biometric Information Privacy Act's healthcare exemption also applies when information is collected from healthcare workers, is a major win for healthcare defendants that resolves an important question of statutory interpretation, say attorneys at Quinn Emanuel.