The Federal Circuit on Wednesday refused to rethink its decision upending a $7.3 million jury verdict against Apple Inc., denying Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL’s bid to reinstate the patent infringement damages because of misconduct by former patent owner Nokia.
A Florida federal judge has tossed a nearly $700,000 jury verdict in a suit by a Royal Caribbean passenger who broke his ankle while ice skating on a ship, ruling Tuesday there was no evidence a jury could use to find that the cruise line knew about shoddy ice rink conditions.
Judge Leslie B. Rothenberg will join plaintiffs’ firm The Ferraro Law Firm PA after she retires from the Third District Court of Appeal bench later this month, the firm announced Tuesday.
The Eighth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a midtrial win for Mayo Clinic Rochester in a suit over a staff doctor’s allegedly negligent prescription for a steroid that caused a man’s injuries, saying the patient’s medical expert was properly excluded from testifying at trial because he lacked practical experience.
A New Jersey appeals court on Wednesday tossed a property owner’s trial win in a slip-and-fall case, ordering a new trial because the property owner’s attorney improperly gave jurors information during closing arguments that had not been admitted into evidence.
A London jury on Wednesday convicted a former Alstom Power Ltd. sales executive of conspiring to bribe politicians and employees at a Lithuanian power plant to score €240 million ($274 million) in contracts, the latest conviction in a corruption probe that has cost the French rail giant £18 million ($22.8 million) in penalties.
Briggs & Stratton Corp. will have to pay lawn mower-maker Exmark $14.4 million in damages after a retrial in which a Nebraska federal jury on Monday cut back a previous award of $24 million, though a finding of willful infringement could mean Briggs & Stratton will end up paying more.
A Florida appeals court on Tuesday tossed a jury’s $3 million verdict finding that R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was to blame for a woman’s cigarette addiction and fatal lung cancer, ruling there was no evidence the woman relied on the tobacco company’s lies about the health impacts of smoking.
The Seventh Circuit on Tuesday revived a dispute over whether AIG Specialty Casualty Insurance Co. should cover an Indiana medical insurer's post-verdict medical malpractice settlement, saying questions remain as to whether the insurer's initial refusal to settle was a wrongful act excluded from the policy.
While denying a convicted cash smuggler’s appeal, the Second Circuit said Tuesday that New York federal prosecutors’ decision at trial to cut the jury pool’s only member of Arab heritage because she received her news from Qatar’s state-funded broadcaster Al Jazeera was “dangerously close” to discrimination.
The past year was a lively one on the multidistrict litigation docket as major MDLs over the opiate crisis and the Equifax data breach got up and running, while cases concerning a Monsanto weedkiller and a common hospital technology revved for early bellwether trials.
A California federal judge told parties at the close of a landmark antitrust bench trial over athlete pay limits Tuesday that it seems "pretty clear" that the NCAA committed an antitrust violation, but she questioned how it could be quantified and appeared wary of million-dollar bidding wars over college athletes.
A Maryland federal judge ruled in favor of the federal government Monday in a suit accusing a federally funded health clinic of causing a woman's death by failing to properly treat blood clots in her lungs, saying the government’s expert medical witness provided a persuasive argument on whether the patient's life could've been saved.
A woman whose 13-year-old daughter was killed by a train after her bike stuck in the tracks urged the Sixth Circuit on Monday to order a new trial against railroad operator CSX Transportation, arguing a first jury was tainted by improper evidence about the girl’s use of antidepressants.
A California federal jury has found that Korean ramen companies were not liable for price-fixing, following a rare antitrust class action jury trial that lasted well over a month.
The U.S. government on Monday urged an Oregon federal judge to maintain her stay of a children's suit accusing the government of pushing policies that contribute to climate change while the Ninth Circuit mulls its latest bid to dismiss the case, saying the children haven't justified the need for a restart.
A California federal jury has found that Nikon Corp. did not infringe camera sensor patents jointly owned by lens maker Carl Zeiss and semiconductor maker ASML, allowing the Japanese camera giant to dodge damages of up to nearly $24 million.
Anyone who thinks that legal ethics is a sleepy area of the law didn't live through 2018. The year saw major decisions about conflict waivers and defunct firm clawbacks, among other meaty topics, and enough head-shaking news springing from the special counsel probe into the presidential election to make one dizzy. Here, Law360 highlights some of the biggest ethics and professional conduct stories of 2018.
General counsel from various industries were forced into the spotlight and held publicly accountable this year — either because they allegedly behaved inappropriately or were accused of handling internal situations poorly — as the #MeToo movement swept through corporate America and its in-house law departments.
A Florida federal jury returned a verdict Monday in favor of Royal Caribbean in a Nebraska family's lawsuit alleging the cruise line's negligence caused their relative's fatal fall from one of its ships and that it intentionally inflicted emotional distress and falsely imprisoned them in the aftermath.
The former CEO of a U.K. bank recently pled guilty to charges under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, following a U.S. Department of Justice sting operation spanning several countries. The conviction sends a clear message that U.S. authorities will prosecute not only U.S. account holders, but those who facilitate tax evasion, whatever their nationality, say attorneys at White & Case LLP.
In the two years since the American Bar Association's controversial anti-discrimination and harassment rule, only one state has adopted it, while numerous state supreme courts, state attorneys general and legal groups have correctly rejected Model Rule 8.4(g) as a threat to lawyers' First Amendment rights, says Bradley Abramson, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom.
Until Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster’s decision this month in Akorn v. Fresenius, no Delaware court had released a buyer from its obligation to close a transaction as a result of a material adverse effect or change. But we expect the conventional wisdom to continue to hold true — that it is extremely difficult for an acquirer to establish the occurrence of a MAC, say attorneys with Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.
In the aftermath of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation, the U.S. Supreme Court should decline review of the nation's most polarizing political questions unless and until the questions become time-sensitive, says Alexander Klein, head of the commercial litigation group at Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco LLP.
In this series featuring law school luminaries, Boston College Law School professor Kent Greenfield reflects on his corporate law theories, his legal battle with the Pentagon over free speech and gay rights, and important constitutional law issues to watch out for.
As highlighted in the Federal Circuit's recent decision in Texas Advanced v. Renesas, plaintiffs hoping to assert trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement claims in the same lawsuit must craft damage theories carefully to avoid running afoul of the prohibition against double recovery, say attorneys at Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP.
Whether Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s prior statements may be grounds for disqualification when it comes to judging certain cases is debatable, but there are no specific recusal guidelines for the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices themselves don’t even agree on where to draw the line when it comes to perceived political bias, says Donald Scarinci, a founding partner of Scarinci Hollenbeck LLC.
Recently, we began examining the attitudes of potential jurors on the #MeToo movement and related issues. This article shares some of our preliminary survey findings, which are on point with issues we all see daily in the media, says Dan Gallipeau of Dispute Dynamics Inc.
As technology evolves, law firms are increasingly looking for ways to improve communication, transparency and service for their clients. Firms should put knowledge management at the core of their value proposition to create a competitive advantage, says Rob MacAdam at HighQ.
Under New York law, statements made in court and other litigation-related communications are, in most cases, privileged. But these privileges have limits, and it behooves litigants — particularly those inclined to speak publicly about their cases — to be aware of them, says Jonathan Bloom of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.