Expert Analysis

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: June Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses five recent rulings from cases involving allegations of internet data misuse, consumer fraud claims, immigration, insurance and First Amendment violation claims.

• Takeaways From 1st Del. Ruling Applying Moelis Amendments

  

  Delaware corporations should carefully review contractual arrangements and governance documents following the Court of Chancery's recent enforcement of a non-Delaware forum selection clause in a CEO's employment agreement under 2024 amendments to the state's General Corporation Law, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• Ill. Law Firm MSO Bill Clashes With Court Power, Ethics Rules

  

  An Illinois bill prohibiting law firms from certain business arrangements with management service organizations, sent to the governor for signature last week, encroaches upon the courts' constitutional powers and goes beyond the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct in regulating investment in law-related services, says Matthew O’Hara at Smith Gambrell.

• The Future Of WDTX Patent Litigation After Judge Albright

  

  With U.S. District Judge Christopher Wolfe set to take over much of Judge Alan Albright's patent infringement docket in the Western District of Texas later this year, attorneys should prepare for potential differences in Judge Wolfe's approach to the court's high volume of patent litigation, say attorneys at Sidley Austin.

• Opinion

  State Courts Must Be Gatekeepers Of Expert Testimony

  

  Based on my experience in the state judiciary, emulating federal courts' role as gatekeepers of expert witness testimony would help state court judges maintain the appearance of impartiality and assist juries, thus enhancing the overall confidence people have in their justice system, says Lorie Gildea at Greenberg Traurig.

• 5 Key Factors Behind USPTO's Inter Partes Review Decisions

  

  Though U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires has drawn criticism for failing to explain his reasoning in inter partes review decisions, his recent precedential order in Magnolia v. Kurin provides five important insights into his decision-making process, says Christopher Loh at Venable.

• Series

  Moshing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Entering a mosh pit is much like entering the practice of law — it is difficult, you have to know both the written and unwritten rules, and conduct yourself according to the expectations of each community, says Christopher Deubert at Constangy Brooks.

• High Court Ruling Casts Doubt On Status-Based Gun Bans

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Hemani demonstrates that the justices are increasingly skeptical of broad theories of categorical disarmament and clarifies that dangerousness cannot simply be presumed from one's status or membership in a statutory category, such as illegal drug use, says Lee Francis at Widener Law.

• Why Highly Specialized Experts May Risk Exclusion At Trial

  

  Expert witnesses with highly specific areas of focus may be vulnerable to exclusion in court, making it important for attorneys to check how potential witnesses' qualifications can be bolstered by their publications and other professional activities, say Evan Weisberg and Christopher Cunio at Hunton, and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

• Generic Drugs Do Not Reach Patients Sooner In The EU

  

  Although the U.S. and European Union take very different approaches to patents, regulatory exclusivities and drug pricing, data shows that the effective market life for brand-name drugs is essentially the same in both jurisdictions, says Margaret Kyle at Mines Paris.

• A Midyear Look At Antiterrorism Act Jurisprudence And Policy

  

  Plaintiffs have filed comparably fewer new actions under the Antiterrorism Act this year, though a handful of key decisions further defined the statute’s aiding-and-abetting standard and highlighted continuing risks for financial services companies, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Opinion

  FTC's Clinical Trial Requirement Threatens Food Claim Rules

  

  The Federal Trade Commission's general requirement for randomized controlled trials for most health-benefit claims, recently embraced by the National Advertising Review Board, lacks legal basis and endangers the existing statutory framework Congress created for marketing food and dietary supplements versus drugs, say attorneys at Keller & Heckman.

• Drawing A Line Between Settlement Pressure And Extortion

  

  U.S. v. Luo, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, may force courts to address anew when settlement negotiations become criminal extortion, particularly in the age of easily fabricated digital evidence, says attorney Denis Kiely.

• Series

  Founding An Autism Academy Made Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Starting a nonprofit autism school with no building, no funding model and no guarantee that families would trust us taught me the importance of mission, patience and purpose — lessons that sharpened my practice and showed how meaningful work outside the office can make lawyers better, says Phillip Russell at Ogletree Deakins.

• Opinion

  Rule Of Law Requires Gov't Engagement With Bar, Not Retreat

  

  A federal agency's absence from national and local bar conferences, most recently illustrated by the U.S. Department of Justice's withdrawal from a New York City Bar Association white collar conference, disserves the bar, the government lawyers themselves and, ultimately, the administration of justice, says Muhammad Faridi at Linklaters.