Expert Analysis

• Law School's Missed Lesson: Diagnose Before Arguing

  

  Law school often skips over explicitly teaching students how to determine what kind of problem a case presents before they commit to a particular doctrinal path, which risks building arguments that are internally coherent but externally misaligned, says Melanie Oxhorn at Kobre & Kim.

• Judges On AI: How Courts Can Survive The Tech Revolution

  

  Colorado Supreme Court Justice Maria Berkenkotter and Colorado Court of Appeals Judge Lino Lipinsky de Orlov discuss how artificial intelligence has already fundamentally altered the legal system and offer tips for courts navigating deepfakes, hallucinations and a gap in access to AI tools.

• 'Skinny Label' Arguments Spotlight Induced Infringement Risk

  

  Recent oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in Hikma Pharmaceuticals v. Amarin Pharma highlight the uncertain boundary between lawful generic competition through so-called skinny labels and induced patent infringement, with potential implications for patent holders’ communication, enforcement and causation strategies across industries, says Anton Hopen at Trenam.

• 3 AI Adoption Mistakes GCs Should Avoid

  

  The pressure in-house legal teams face to quickly adopt artificial intelligence tools, combined with budget constraints and the need to evaluate a crowded market of options, sets the stage for implementation mistakes that are often difficult to undo, says former 23andMe general counsel Guy Chayoun.

• 4 Emerging Approaches To AI Protective Order Language

  

  Over the last year, at least five federal district courts have issued or analyzed specific protective order provisions restricting the use of generative artificial intelligence platforms with protected materials, establishing that proactive AI-specific provisions are now standard practice and demonstrating that no single model works for every case, says Joel Bush at Kilpatrick.

• What Justices Are Focusing On In 'Skinny Label' Patent Case

  

  Though Hikma v. Amarin appears to be a patent dispute that could reshape inducement doctrine in the pharmaceutical context, oral argument suggests the U.S. Supreme Court may treat this as primarily a pleading-stage dispute, with important unresolved questions lurking beneath the surface, says Shashank Upadhye at Upadhye Tang.

• Heppner Ruling Left AI Privilege Risk For Lawyers Unresolved

  

  While a New York federal judge’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Heppner resolved a privilege question surrounding client-side artificial intelligence use, it did not address how to mitigate the risks that can arise when confidential information enters the operative context of an AI system used by an attorney, says Jianfei Chen at Quarles & Brady​​​​​​​.

• Suit's Dismissal Would Not Settle Gold Card Visa's Legality

  

  The government’s recent assertion that the plaintiffs in American Association of University Professors v. Department of Homeland Security lack standing to challenge the Trump administration’s pay-to-play immigration program does not address whether an agency can deem a million-dollar gift evidence of eligibility for immigration benefits carefully defined by Congress, says Jun Li at Reid & Wise.

• 2 AI Snafus Show Why Attys Can't Outsource Judgment

  

  The recent incident involving Sullivan & Cromwell where citations in a filed motion were fabricated by artificial intelligence, as well as a punitive ruling from the Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Farris, demonstrate that the obligation to supervise AI has belonged and always will belong to lawyers, says John Powell at the Kentucky School Boards Association.

• What's At Stake For Employers In Fight Over Visa Pause

  

  For employers that rely on foreign talent, the Trump administration’s suspension of immigrant visa issuance for the nationals of 75 countries is creating practical problems, and a recently filed lawsuit challenging the pause could determine whether consular processing, for some, ceases to be an individualized process, says attorney Lisa Eisenberg.

• High Court 'Skinny Label' Case Will Matter To Tech Litigators

  

  Hikma v. Amarin, set for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, has potential to affect not just generic drug label-based evidence in patent cases, but also how technology inducement cases are presented and proven, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

• Law School's Missed Lessons: How To Draft Pleadings

  

  Most law school graduates step into their first jobs without ever having drafted a complaint, answer, motion or other type of pleading, but that gap can be closed by understanding the strategy embedded in every filing, writing with clarity and purpose, and seeking feedback at every step, says Eric Yakaitis at Haug Barron.

• E-Discovery Quarterly: Recent Rulings On ESI Control

  

  Several recent federal court decisions have perpetuated a split over what constitutes “control” of electronically stored information — with judges divided on whether the standard should turn on a party's legal right or practical ability to obtain the information, say attorneys at Sidley.