Expert Analysis

• Justices May Hesitate To Limit Courts' Arbitration Review

  

  Based on Monday's argument in Jules v. Andre Balazs, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to preserve federal jurisdiction over arbitral award enforcement stemming from actions originated in federal court, a holding that would markedly limit the court's 2022 Walters v. Badgerow decision, says Ashwini Jayaratnam at DarrowEverett.

• Series

  Ultramarathons Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Completing a 100-mile ultramarathon was tougher, more humbling and more rewarding than I ever imagined, and the experience highlighted how long-distance running has sharpened my ability to adapt to the evolving nature of antitrust law and strengthened my resolve to handle demanding, unforeseen challenges, says Dan Oakes at Axinn.

• Determining When Engineered Biologics May Be Patentable

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Regenxbio v. Sarepta, concluding that engineered cells with DNA from different organisms are not patent-ineligible natural phenomena, raises questions surrounding what framework courts will use to evaluate the patent eligibility of engineered biologics moving forward, says Robert Frederickson at Goodwin.

• Getting The Most Out Of Learning And Development Programs

  Excerpt from Practical Guidance

  

  Junior associates can better develop the legal, business and interpersonal skills they need for long-term success by approaching their firms’ learning and development programs armed with five tips for getting the most out of these resources, says Lauren Hakala at Reed Smith.

• A Shift In Fed. Circ.'s Approach To Patent Summary Judgment

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Range of Motion v. Armaid may come to be seen as a seminal opinion for potentially exposing and entrenching the Federal Circuit's movement away from its previous framework for identifying obvious noninfringement cases, says Nicholas Nowak at Nowak IP Group.

• Considering The Risks That Arise When IP Outlives Its Owner

  

  Federal and state court decisions show that the statutory regime for each category of intellectual property promises continuity after the owner's death, but the law does not provide a succession framework for how those rights are to be exercised, says Erin Daly at Daly Law & Strategy.

• How A High Court Music Piracy Ruling Shrinks ISP Liability

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion in Cox Communications Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, which concerned the boundaries of contributory copyright infringement for internet service providers, dramatically lessens both the risk that an ISP will be held contributorily liable and, relatedly, the incentives an ISP may have to help combat online copyright infringement, say attorneys at Debevoise.

• Opinion

  AI Presents A Make-Or-Break Moment For Outside Counsel

  

  The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence by corporate legal departments is forcing a long-overdue reset of the relationship between inside and outside counsel, and introducing a significant opportunity to shed frustrating inefficiencies and strengthen collaboration for firms willing to embrace the shift, says Intel Chief Legal Officer April Miller Boise.

• Opinion

  USPTO Has A Chance To Correct Double-Patenting Doctrine

  

  Now that the issue of obviousness-type double patenting is front and center before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Appeals Review Panel, the agency should put an end to the practice of rejecting earlier-expiring patents in favor of later-expiring ones, say attorneys at Orrick.

• 1st AI Acquisition Regulation Raises Contractor Concerns

  

  The General Services Administration’s recently published contract clause addressing artificial intelligence systems is problematic in a number of ways, underscoring the complex legal and practical issues that will need to be addressed as AI becomes more widely deployed in federal contracting, say attorneys at Haynes Boone.

• Grammarly Suit Flags Right Of Publicity As Key AI Issue

  

  Angwin v. Superhuman Platform, filed recently in New York federal court against the parent company of Grammarly, highlights an overlooked question for any company using artificial intelligence — whether someone's identity has been used for commercial purposes without consent, possibly violating rapidly shifting state right-of-publicity laws, says Nicholas Schneider at Eckert Seamans.

• Series

  Watching Hallmark Movies Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  I realize you may be judging me for watching, and actually enjoying, Hallmark Channel movies, but the escapism and storylines actually demonstrate qualities and actions that lead to an efficient, productive and positive legal practice, says Karen Ross at Tucker Ellis.

• Reel Justice: 'Mercy' And Private Surveillance As Evidence

  

  The near-future depicted in the film “Mercy” reminds attorneys that private surveillance networks are becoming central to the evidentiary ecosystem, shaping what prosecutors can obtain, what defendants must explain and what jurors may interpret as objective truth, says Veronica Finkelstein at Wilmington University.

• Fed. Circ. In February: When Grammar Trumps Patent Specs

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision in Netflix v. DivX last month highlights the challenge of interpreting potentially misplaced modifiers in complicated technological patents, and the potential for grammatical rules to provide a default interpretation for unclear claim language, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• New Orphan Drug Law Provides A Key Fix For Pharma Cos.

  

  The Consolidated Appropriations Act enacted last month restores the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's long-standing interpretation of "same disease or condition," related to orphan drug exclusivity, resolving years of regulatory uncertainty and litigation that have discouraged rare disease research, say attorneys at Spencer Fane.