Expert Analysis

• E-Discovery Quarterly: Rulings On Relevance Redactions

  

  In recent cases addressing redactions that parties sought to apply based on the relevance of information — as opposed to considerations of privilege — courts have generally limited a party’s ability to withhold nonresponsive or irrelevant material, providing a few lessons for discovery strategy, say attorneys at Sidley.

• Opinion

  Section 1983 Has Promise After End Of Nationwide Injunctions

  

  After the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the practice of nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Casa, Section 1983 civil rights suits can provide a better pathway to hold the government accountable — but this will require reforms to qualified immunity, says Marc Levin at the Council on Criminal Justice.

• Reel Justice: 'Oh, Hi!' Teaches Attys To Return To The Statute

  

  The new dark comedy film “Oh, Hi!” — depicting a romantic vacation that turns into an inadvertent kidnapping — should remind criminal practitioners to always reread the statute to avoid assumptions, meet their ethical duties and finesse their trial strategy, says Veronica Finkelstein at Wilmington University School of Law.

• Patent Ambiguity Persists After Justices Nix Eligibility Appeal

  

  The Supreme Court recently declined to revisit the contentious framework governing patent eligibility by denying certiorari in Audio Evolution Diagnostics v. U.S., suggesting a necessary recalibration of both patent application and litigation strategies, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Justices' Decision Axing Retiree's ADA Claim Offers Clarity

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Stanley v. City of Sanford that protections under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act don't extend to retirees potentially limits liability by giving employers additional support to challenge complaints, and highlights the need for proactive policy management to mitigate risk, say attorneys at Jackson Lewis.

• Fed. Circ. In June: Transitional Phrases In Patent Claims

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Eye Therapies v. Slayback Pharma takes on the rarely addressed topic of transitional phrases in patent claims, providing some useful lessons regarding restating claim language and broadly distinguishing prior art, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Series

  Playing Soccer Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Soccer has become a key contributor to how I approach my work, and the lessons I’ve learned on the pitch about leadership, adaptability, resilience and communication make me better at what I do every day in my legal career, says Whitney O’Byrne at MoFo.

• What To Do When Congress And DOJ Both Come Knocking

  

  As recently seen in the news, clients may find themselves facing parallel U.S. Department of Justice and congressional investigations, requiring a comprehensive response that considers the different challenges posed by each, say attorneys at Friedman Kaplan.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Learning From Failure

  

  While law school often focuses on the importance of precision, correctness and perfection, mistakes are inevitable in real-world practice — but failure is not the opposite of progress, and real talent comes from the ability to recover, rethink and reshape, says Brooke Pauley at Tucker Ellis.

• Eye Drop Ruling Clarifies Importance Of Patent Phrasing

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent ruling in Eye Therapies v. Slayback, rejecting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's interpretation of "consisting essentially of," highlights the importance of using clear and consistent terms throughout a patent's filing history to shield it against future challenges, says Liliana Di Nola-Baron at Panitch Schwarze.

• Midyear Rewind: How Courts Are Reshaping VPPA Standards

  

  The first half of 2025 saw a series of cases interpreting the Video Privacy Protection Act as applied to website tracking technologies, including three appellate rulings deepening circuit splits on what qualifies as personally identifiable information and who qualifies as a consumer under the statute, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.

• How Justices' Ruling On NEPA Reviews Is Playing Out

  

  Since the U.S. Supreme Court's May decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, narrowing the scope of agencies' required reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act, the effects of the ruling are starting to become visible in the actions of lower courts and the agencies themselves, say attorneys at Saul Ewing.

• Series

  Adapting To Private Practice: From ATF Director To BigLaw

  

  As a two-time boomerang partner, returning to BigLaw after stints as a U.S. attorney and the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, people ask me how I know when to move on, but there’s no single answer — just clearly set your priorities, says Steven Dettelbach at BakerHostetler.

• Reverse Bias Rulings Offer Warning About DEI Quotas

  

  Several recent holdings confirm that targeted or quota-based diversity programs can substantiate reverse discrimination claims, especially when coupled with an adverse action, so employers should exercise caution before implementing such policies in order to mitigate litigation risk, says Noah Bunzl at Tarter Krinsky.

• 4th Circ. Favors Plain Meaning In Bump-Up D&O Ruling

  

  The Fourth Circuit's latest denial of indemnity coverage in Towers Watson v. National Union Fire Insurance and its previous ruling in this case lay out a pragmatic approach to bump-up provisions that avoids hypertechnical constructions to limit the effect of a policy's plain meaning, say attorneys at Kennedys.