A Delaware federal judge dismantled a Merck & Co. unit’s $2.5 billion jury verdict win over Gilead Sciences Inc. in an infringement suit over a hepatitis C drug patent, finding Friday that the patent’s claims weren’t specific enough for an experienced scientist to successfully re-create the formula.
Holland & Knight LLP urged a California appellate panel on Friday to undo a jury's $34.5 million award to a real estate investor who sued the firm over fraud and malpractice, arguing that the firm had no knowledge of alleged wrongdoing surrounding the investor's transactions and that the jury improperly awarded duplicated damages.
A Delaware judge refused Thursday to grant a new trial for a doctor hit with a $4.5 million judgment over negligence in the delivery of a baby, saying a jury was shown enough evidence to back up its verdict, and that $3 million in damages was reasonable.
A Nevada homeowners association was hit with a $20 million jury verdict Friday in a suit brought by a teenager who sustained a traumatic brain injury after the top bar of a swing set broke and hit him in the head.
A man convicted in two separate multimillion-dollar fraud cases told the Second Circuit on Thursday that he suffered from ineffective counsel, saying his attorney never told him about a deal that would have consolidated his guilty pleas and potentially taken more than two years off his sentence.
It may seem like a nightmare scenario for a trial attorney: giving a closing argument and feeling the majority of the jury is going against you. But trial attorneys say that as long as you know there's one juror committed to your case who's been armed with your arguments, a verdict in your favor is no dream.
A settlement between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and former Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP chief financial officer Joel Sanders, who was convicted of fraud, rests on the outcome of Sanders' criminal appeal, a Manhattan federal judge heard Friday.
A judge overseeing the military commission prosecuting the alleged mastermind of the deadly USS Cole bombing has halted the case, citing his ongoing frustration with defense attorneys who are allegedly rebelling against the military commission system.
A Virginia federal jury on Thursday awarded a Texas door manufacturer $58.6 million in its antitrust suit against a supplier of molded door skins, a crucial door component, finding the supplier violated antitrust law by acquiring a competing supplier and overcharging the door-maker for components.
AT&T Inc.’s bid to have Makan Delrahim, head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, testify in the case challenging its planned purchase of Time Warner Inc., could help the company argue that the challenge was politically motivated, but it may not be easy and comes with some risk.
A Harris County, Texas, jury on Thursday awarded a patient $6.6 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit, finding that two doctors were liable for failing to diagnose and treat a blood clot that left her with permanent medical issues.
A construction contractor appealing the loss of an employee wage suit was met with sanctions from the Seventh Circuit on Wednesday and a stern rebuke over practically every facet of the appeal, from its "naked assertions" to the flouting of local rules mandating supporting documentation.
A Pennsylvania attorney facing part of a $2.3 million verdict for abusive probate litigation against a former Cozen O'Connor partner should not receive a new trial, the winner of that verdict argued in a state court filing Wednesday, saying a pending appeal in the case invalidated claims that an expert committed perjury.
Todd Howe, the lobbyist-turned-cooperator who was arrested during the time he testified against an ex-aide to New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo accused of bribery, shed tears on the witness stand Thursday morning before his tumultuous cross-examination ended with an admission that he doesn't know how many emails he has faked.
A Los Angeles jury on Thursday awarded $13 million to a former UCLA oncologist who claims she was forced to take a job elsewhere after complaining about disparate treatment because of her gender, though it found in favor of the school on an age discrimination claim.
A hedge fund owner was found guilty Thursday in New Jersey federal court of defrauding two investors out of about $4 million and spending most of those funds on what prosecutors said was a lavish lifestyle that included a $1 million home and a roughly $100,000 diamond ring.
A Filipino family who entered the United States as legal permanent residents won a $387,621 verdict on Wednesday when a Colorado federal jury found they had been forced to work without wages for a family member who sponsored their entry.
An Arizona state judge has ordered the owner of two rental car companies in Phoenix to pay nearly $2 million to resolve a consumer fraud lawsuit, finding that the companies improperly charged extra fees, misrepresented rental agreements and rented out cars with false odometer readings.
A fake attorney has been convicted in Pennsylvania federal court of running a bogus nationwide law practice out of his New Jersey home and defrauding more than 100 victims from around the world, authorities announced on Wednesday.
A New Jersey judge has ruled a DNA mutation that increased a woman’s breast cancer risk is a “pre-pre-existing condition” that cannot be used as evidence of a “precancerous condition” by her doctor, who is defending himself in a malpractice trial for an alleged misdiagnosis of breast cancer that led her to get a double mastectomy.
Late last year, the Sedona Conference released the third edition of its principles addressing electronic document production, updated to account for innovations like Snapchat and Twitter. It may be necessary for these principles to be updated more often in order to keep pace with technology, says Charles McGee III of Murphy & McGonigle LLP.
Last week, the District of Delaware raised eyebrows by ruling that documents provided to a litigation funder and its counsel in connection with their due diligence are categorically not attorney work product. Acceleration Bay v. Activision Blizzard seems to be a case of bad facts making bad law, says David Gallagher, investment manager and legal counsel for Bentham IMF.
A California federal judge implied that her recent decision in Lawson v. GrubHub was a close call, which suggests there is a tipping point where a driver moves from the independent contractor classification to the employee classification. However, when exactly that happens is still up in the air, says Art Lambert of Fisher Phillips.
Establishing a causal link between allegedly wrongful conduct and the quantity of damages asserted can be challenging. Fortunately, increasing volumes of real-world data are available to the damages expert, and natural experiments based on such data can be effective in showing causality and estimating damages, says Niall MacMenamin of Analysis Group Inc.
Artificial intelligence tools can empower attorneys to work more efficiently, deepen and broaden their areas of expertise, and provide increased value to clients, which in turn can improve legal transparency, dispute resolution and access to justice. But there are some common pitfalls already apparent in the legal industry, say Ben Allgrove and Yoon Chae of Baker McKenzie.
The Ninth Circuit recently rejected the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s grant of incentive adders to Pacific Gas & Electric’s rate of return calculations for the utility's continued participation in the markets operated by the California Independent System Operator. The decision may open the door for more challenges to public utilities’ rate filings, say attorneys with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.
In a recent case, Lender Management LLC v. Commissioner, the U.S. Tax Court ruled against the Internal Revenue Service after it asserted that the costs of running a family office were not deductible for federal income tax purposes. The decision provides a road map for other family offices on how to structure their operations, says Mark Leeds of Mayer Brown LLP.
Your willingness to let your guard down and render yourself “open” requires an enormous amount of courage. But the impact that vulnerability has on a jury cannot be underestimated, says actor and trial lawyer Michael DeBlis, discussing how tools of the stage can be used by lawyers in the courtroom.
On more than one occasion, I have seen patent counsel start the opening by saying to the jury, “This is a really complex case that will be hard to understand at times, but we will get through it together.” Sounds like preparation for a root canal, says Dan Gallipeau of Dispute Dynamics Inc.
An Illinois appellate court has formally recognized that co-parties to a lawsuit who agree to share information pursuant to a common interest in defeating their opponent do not waive either attorney-client or work-product privileges when doing so. The decision clarifies exactly what the joint defense privilege is and, importantly, what it is not, says Symone Shinton of Greenberg Traurig LLP.