Expert Analysis

• Newly Acquired Information Can Be Key In Drug Label Cases

  

  The question of whether federal law preempts state law claims is often central in pharmaceutical labeling cases, like the Fosamax litigation now before the Third Circuit — but parties must also consider whether there is newly acquired information to justify submitting a proposed labeling change in the first place, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Tips For Employers As Courts Shift On Paid Leave Bias Suits

  

  After several federal courts recently cited the U.S. Supreme Court's Muldrow decision — which held that job transfers could be discriminatory — in ruling that paid administrative leave may also constitute an adverse employment action, employers should carefully consider several points before suspending workers, says Tucker Camp at Foley & Lardner.

• NC Ruling Takes Practical Approach To Duty-To-Defend Costs

  

  In Murphy-Brown v. Ace American Insurance, a case of first impression, the North Carolina Business Court adopted the commonsense rationale of many state courts in holding that policyholders' defense costs should be deemed presumtively reasonable when a insurer breaches its duty to defend, say attorneys at McGuireWoods.

• Calif. Ruling Offers Hope For Mitigated Negative Declarations

  

  In Upland Community First v. City of Upland, a California appeals court upheld a warehouse development's mitigated negative declaration over its greenhouse gas emissions thresholds — a rare victory against this type of challenge providing reassurance that such declarations can be upheld, say attorneys at Sheppard Mullin.

• False Patent Marking Claims Find New Home In Lanham Act

  

  While the Patent Act may have closed the courthouse doors for many false patent marking claims, the Federal Circuit, in its recent decision in Crocs v. Effervescent, may be opening a window to these types of claims under the Lanham Act, says John Cordani at Robinson & Cole.

• 3rd. Circ. Ruling Shows Employers Where To Put ADA Focus

  

  A recent Third Circuit decision in Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging, confirming that the Americans with Disabilities Act protects some temporarily impaired employees, reminds employers to pursue compliance through uniform policies that head off discriminatory decisions, not after-the-fact debates over an individual's disability status, says Joseph McGuire at Freeman Mathis.

• Nvidia Case's Potential Impact On Securities Class Actions

  

  In Nvidia v. Ohman Fonder, the U.S. Supreme Court could strip lower courts of their long-standing ability and obligation to holistically weigh all relevant facts supporting plaintiffs' allegations of securities fraud, which would have a wide-ranging impact on securities fraud class actions in the U.S., say attorneys at Labaton Keller.

• Justices Face Tough Question On HHS Hospital Pay Formula

  

  In Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services properly applied certain Medicare reimbursement adjustments to hospitals — a decision that could significantly affect hospitals' ability to seek higher Medicare reimbursement for low-income patients, say attorneys at Sheppard Mullin.

• How Attorneys Can Break Free From Career Enmeshment

  

  Ambitious attorneys can sometimes experience career enmeshment — when your sense of self-worth becomes unhealthily tangled up in your legal vocation — but taking the time to discover and realign with your core personal values can help you recover your identity, says Janna Koretz at Azimuth Psychological.

• Where Can Privacy Plaintiffs Sue When Injury Is Online?

  

  Website owners need to understand wiretapping laws to understand whether they may be sued for activity tracking in California or Pennsylvania courts, where the statutory damages for violations of half-century-old laws can be substantial — and a recent Third Circuit decision suggests establishing specific jurisdiction is not as easy as 1-2-3, say attorneys at Crowell & Moring.

• Short-Seller Implications Of 10th Circ.'s Overstock Decision

  

  The Tenth Circuit's Oct. 15 decision in Overstock Securities Litigation provides clarity on the pleading standard for a market manipulation claim under the Exchange Act, and suggests that short sellers might not be able to rely on the fraud-on-the-market presumption typically invoked by securities plaintiffs, say attorneys at Paul Weiss.

• Patent Lessons From 4 Federal Circuit Reversals In September

  

  Cases that were reversed or vacated by the Federal Circuit last month provide helpful clarity on collateral estoppel, patent eligibility, construction of claim terms that have different boundaries across different claims, and the role of courts as neutral arbiter, say attorneys at Bunsow De Mory.

• 11th Circ. Ruling Offers Refresher On 'Sex-Plus' Bias Claims

  

  While the Eleventh Circuit’s recent ruling in McCreight v. AuburnBank dismissed former employees’ sex-plus-age discrimination claims, the opinion reminds employers to ensure that workplace policies and practices do not treat a subgroup of employees of one sex differently than the same subgroup of another sex, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• Ex-Chicago Politician's Case May Further Curb Fraud Theories

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Thompson v. U.S. to determine whether a statement that is misleading but not false still violates federal law, potentially heralding the court’s largest check yet on prosecutors’ expansive fraud theories, with significant implications for sentencing, say attorneys at the Law Offices of Alan Ellis.

• Lawyers With Disabilities Are Seeking Equity, Not Pity

  

  Attorneys living with disabilities face extra challenges — including the need for special accommodations, the fear of stigmatization and the risk of being tokenized — but if given equitable opportunities, they can still rise to the top of their field, says Kate Reder Sheikh, a former attorney and legal recruiter at Major Lindsey & Africa.