Expert Analysis

• Trade Secret Practice Tips From The 1st Half Of 2026

  

  Intellectual property attorneys should consider what several significant developments in 2026 thus far mean for how they protect, litigate and value trade secrets, focusing on new state noncompete bans, cases scrutinizing how plaintiffs identify trade secrets and federal rulings on damages doctrines, say attorneys at Faegre Drinker.

• High Court Rulings Could Alter Agency Strategy For Cos.

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook mark major turning points in the law of independent agencies and in how regulated companies should think about federal enforcement, rulemaking and agency-facing strategy, say attorneys at Holtzman Vogel.

• Quantifying Damages In Product Launch Delay Allegations

  

  In delayed generic-drug entry cases that have generated substantial settlements in recent years, damages are often measured by profits lost during the delay window, but this model can fail to account for potentially significant economic harm that occurs after that window, say analysts at Kroll.

• 2 Microsoft Matters Could Help Shape AI Antitrust Outlook

  

  A pending federal court case and investigation focusing on Microsoft's allegedly anticompetitive conduct in the deployment of artificial intelligence tools are testing whether antitrust law can distinguish ordinary competition to supply the AI ecosystem from conduct that distorts how that competition unfolds, says Kylie Kim at Massey & Gail.

• Carbon Health Settlement Highlights Why Evidence Is Key

  

  The California Attorney General's Office's first-of-its-kind settlement with Carbon Health, imposing penalties for alleged corporate practice of medicine violations, shows that friendly professional corporation challenges usually hinge not on the parties' management services agreement, but on whether the operational record matches it, says Ben Dubin at VC Expert Services.

• Fed Autonomy Rests On Narrow Exception After Justices Rule

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter expand presidential removal power while temporarily preserving the Federal Reserve’s independence, but there is uncertainty about which of the Fed’s authorities fall within the court’s narrow monetary-policy exception, says Keith Bradley at Squire Patton.

• Series

  Being A Magician Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The skills I've developed as a lifelong magician have translated directly into tangible benefits in the courtroom because performing magic and trying cases both live at the intersection of psychology, storytelling, timing and disciplined rehearsal, says Mark Dombroff at Fox Rothschild.

• How Litigants Are Testing Conversion Therapy Ruling's Scope

  

  Litigants are already using the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Chiles v. Salazar ruling, which applied strict scrutiny to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, to challenge laws limiting algorithmic rental pricing, artificial intelligence-based discrimination and anti-union employer speech, and courts must soon decide Chiles’ First Amendment limits, say attorneys at O'Melveny.

• Future Of Fed Independence Shaky After Justices' Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. Cook preserved the Federal Reserve's formal independence but could invite the president to remove board members with just modest protections, leaving the central bank's autonomy uncertain and potentially setting up fresh clashes over other agencies, says Steven Schwinn at the University of Chicago.

• CFIUS' Mandate Misses Foreign Risk In Project Subcontracts

  

  Recent calls for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review equity transactions like the Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. deal miss a consequential oversight gap — CFIUS' inability to review the subcontracting layer of U.S. infrastructure projects, says Thibaut Giret at Alstef Group.

• Looking At Drake's Diss Track Appeal Through An IP Lens

  

  Though Drake's pending Second Circuit appeal over UMG's promotion of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" is formally about defamation, it shows that IP considerations can help identify records showing how a work traveled, which may guide courts when deciding context, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

• Series

  Bass Fishing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Landing a trophy striped bass and closing a big deal both require cultivating the patience to finesse — not force — your way to desired outcomes, changing course when your old approach isn’t working and learning from the ones that got away, says Jon Ruiss at Alston & Bird.

• What Consent Decree Trends Mean For Deal Clearances

  

  With merger remedies back on the table under the current administration, an analysis of recent Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice consent decrees reveals that prior approval and prior notice provisions are no longer a foregone conclusion, and companies may be able to negotiate narrowly tailored obligations, say attorneys at Weil.

• Roundup

  The Most Talked-About Supreme Court Decisions Of 2026

  

  This term, 11 U.S. Supreme Court decisions quickly became hot topics among Law360's guest writers.

• 'Tiger King' Funeral Clip Ruling Offers Fair Use Road Map

  

  The Tenth Circuit's decision in Whyte Monkee v. Netflix that the streaming service's use of another party's funeral footage in the docuseries "Tiger King" constituted fair use lays out a framework for producers to apply the four statutory fair use factors to their own projects, says Frank D’Angelo at Loeb & Loeb.