Expert Analysis

• Teva, Wyeth Show How Claimed Advances Shape Enablement

  

  Two recent Federal Circuit decisions involving method-of-treatment claims — Teva v. Eli Lilly and Wyeth v. AstraZeneca — reached opposite enablement outcomes from strikingly similar procedural postures, but a closer comparison of the cases reveals a three-step framework for understanding the court's reasoning, says Kendall Gurule at Polsinelli.

• Opinion

  Calif. Bill Goes Too Far In Trying To Regulate Attorney AI Use

  

  California’s first-in-the-nation act regulating how attorneys and arbitrators use generative artificial intelligence will likely soon become law, but read broadly, the provisions may dissuade lawyers from employing AI at all, thereby depriving them of key work tools, says Joshua Wurtzel at Schlam Stone.

• Reel Justice: 'The Furious' And Journalistic Evidence

  

  Viewing "The Furious” from a litigator’s perspective highlights nuances that arise when gathering evidence from journalistic investigations, serving as a reminder to not only ask whether evidence is relevant, but also what legal framework governs the person or entity holding it, says Veronica Finkelstein at Widener-Delaware Law.

• Resetting For Success After Corporate Litigation Loses Focus

  

  Corporate litigation that has lost strategic coherence may barrel disastrously ahead if counsel’s understanding of the matter drifts from the client’s goals, but cases can be wrenched back on track by diagnosing how facts have evolved, determining where resources are justified and deploying practical strategies for restoring discipline, says Jonathan Morris at Gordon Rees.

• How Bifurcation And Verdict Forms Can Sway Jury Outcomes

  

  The bifurcated trial structure used in a Nevada personal injury case — where the jury recently awarded the plaintiff more than $56 million — highlights a strategic option that litigators often overlook and raises considerations about the potential advantage of carefully assembled verdict forms, says litigation consultant Clint Townson.

• Meta Deal Highlights Advisory Jury Issues, Litigation Risk

  

  The $17 billion settlement of youth safety claims brought against Meta offers lessons for all consumer-facing companies because the court made the rare move of empaneling an advisory jury and the case was built on what the company learned from its own studies, says Mark Morgan at McCarter & English.

• 2nd Circ. Tylenol MDL Ruling Clarifies Court Gatekeeper Role

  

  The Second Circuit’s recent decision in multidistrict litigation over alleged links between Tylenol and developmental disorders, holding that the trial court improperly excluded expert witnesses, preserves meaningful judicial gatekeeping while making clear that judges may not resolve legitimate scientific disputes themselves, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Cultivating Good Judgment

  

  Law schools generally overlook the role that solid judgment skills play in real-world practice, but attorneys can bridge the gap by strengthening their abilities to assess a case’s strengths and weaknesses, develop and execute effective strategies, and provide clear recommendations to clients, says Manny Caixeiro at Venable.

• Intersecting Investigation Risks Loom In Next Congress

  

  Taken together, two July D.C. Circuit decisions and a recent U.S. Department of Justice opinion on executive privilege may affect the procedural defenses and privilege protections available to targets of oversight in the upcoming Congress, and companies should begin preparing now, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• 9th Circ. Comet Ruling Spotlights Trade Secret Proof Burdens

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision to vacate a $40 million verdict awarded to Comet Technologies in its trade secret dispute with XP Power underscores how the burden of proof differs between federal and state law, giving litigants a fresh perspective on several issues, including how a jury should be instructed, say attorneys at Cooley.

• What Trial Teams Should Know About AI Jury Research Tools

  

  Using artificial intelligence for jury research is quickly becoming part of the litigation consulting landscape, and can be a useful part of a case assessment toolkit — but litigators must understand what these systems are built to measure, and what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from their output, say Bill Kanasky and Steve Wood at Courtroom Sciences.

• Attorneys Using AI May Have Ethical Duty To Redact Docs

  

  The trajectory of legal ethics guidance in recent years strongly suggests that as redaction technology becomes more accessible, the failure to use it when uploading highly confidential materials into artificial intelligence tools will become increasingly difficult to defend as reasonable, say attorneys at Lewis Brisbois.

• Series

  Juggling And Unicycling Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Because I juggle (sometimes with fire) and ride the unicycle, friends and family used to joke that I should join the circus, but I pursued the practice of law instead and learned that my hobbies benefit my profession in several important ways, says Morgan Eddy at Smith Currie.

• Opinion

  NC Litigation Funding Ban Sets Model For Other States

  

  States worried about rising liability costs and the commercialization of their courts should treat North Carolina's recently enacted litigation funding ban as a model because a prohibition adequately addresses the distortion that disclosure only documents, say attorneys at McAngus Goudelock.

• Expert Witness's ChatGPT Use Highlights New AI Risks

  

  An expert witness's recent use of ChatGPT in multidistrict litigation involving 3M to formulate most of his opinion illustrates the lack of clear rules for how an expert may use generative AI in an opinion, expanding both offensive and defensive discovery considerations, says David Shargel at Bracewell.