Expert Analysis

• Alice Step 2 Trends Show Courts' Extrinsic Evidence Reliance

  

  A look at recent trends in how district courts are applying Step 2 of the Alice framework shows that courts have increasingly relied on extrinsic evidence to help determine whether a claimed invention is "well-understood, routine, and conventional," says Jonathan Tuminaro at Sterne Kessler.

• Opinion

  OFAC Sanctions Deserve To Be Challenged Post-Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision opens the door to challenges against the Office of Foreign Assets Control's sanctions regime, the unintended consequences of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of what appears to be a scorched-earth approach, says Solomon Shinerock at Lewis Baach.

• How Calif. Ruling Alters Worker Arb. Agreement Enforcement

  

  The California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ramirez v. Charter Communications should caution employers that while workers’ arbitration agreements will no longer be deemed unenforceable based on their number of unconscionable provisions, they must still be fair and balanced, says Sander van der Heide at CDF Labor.

• Opinion

  After Jarkesy, IRS Must Course-Correct On Captive Insurance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy decision has profound implications for other agencies, including the IRS, which must stop ignoring due process and curtailing congressional intent in its policing of captive insurance arrangements, says Peter Dawson at the 831(b) Institute.

• The Rise Of State And Local Environmental Leadership

  

  While Congress is deadlocked, and a U.S. Supreme Court with a hostility toward the administrative state aggressively dismantles federal environmental oversight, state and local governments are stepping up with policies to shape a more sustainable future for all species, says Jonathan Rosenbloom at Albany Law School.

• Questions Linger About DTSA's Scope After Motorola Ruling

  

  The Seventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Motorola v. Hytera, which held that the Defend Trade Secrets Act applies extraterritorially, does not address whether an act that furthers misappropriation must be committed by the defendant in order to satisfy the law's extraterritoriality requirement, say Ilissa Samplin and Grace Hart at Gibson Dunn.

• Series

  After Chevron: Slowing Down AI In Medical Research

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision overturning the Chevron doctrine may inhibit agencies' regulatory efforts, potentially slowing down the approval and implementation of artificial intelligence-driven methodologies in medical research, as well as regulators' responses to public health emergencies, say Ragini Acharya and Matthew Deutsch at Husch Blackwell.

• What High Court TM Rulings Tell Us About Free Speech

  

  Recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings show tension between free speech and trademark law, highlighting that while political mockery is protected, established brands may be forced to adapt to evolving cultural values, says William Scott Goldman at Goldman Law Group.

• Series

  Being A Luthier Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  When I’m not working as an appellate lawyer, I spend my spare time building guitars — a craft known as luthiery — which has helped to enhance the discipline, patience and resilience needed to write better briefs, says Rob Carty at Nichols Brar.

• Series

  After Chevron: Uncertainty In Scope Of ITC Oversight

  

  The U.S. International Trade Commission's long-standing jurisprudence on some of the most disputed and controversial issues is likely to be reshaped by the Federal Circuit, which is no longer bound by Chevron deference in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision, say Kecia Reynolds and Madeleine Moss at Paul Hastings.

• Half-Truths Vs. Omissions: Slicing Justices' Macquarie Cake

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Macquarie v. Moab provides a road map for determining whether corporate reports that omit information should be considered misleading — and the court baked it into a dessert analogy that is key to understanding the guidelines, say Daniel Levy and Pavithra Kumar at Advanced Analytical Consulting Group.

• Lead Like 'Ted Lasso' By Embracing Cognitive Diversity

  

  The Apple TV+ series “Ted Lasso” aptly illustrates how embracing cognitive diversity can be a winning strategy for teams, providing a useful lesson for law firms, which can benefit significantly from fresh, diverse perspectives and collaborative problem-solving, says Paul Manuele at PR Manuele Consulting.

• Chevron's End Puts Target On CFPB's Aggressive BNPL Rule

  

  A recent interpretative rule by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, subjecting buy-now, pay-later loans to the same regulations as credit cards, is unlikely to survive post-Chevron challenges of the rule's partisan and shaky logic, say Scott Pearson and Bryan Schneider at Manatt.

• Justices' Ch. 11 Ruling Is A Big Moment For Debtors' Insurers

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Truck Insurance v. Kaiser Gypsum ruling upends decades of Chapter 11 bankruptcy jurisprudence that relegated a debtor’s insurer to the sidelines, giving insurers a new footing to try and avoid significant liability, say Stuart Gordon and Benjamin Wisher at Rivkin Radler.

• Justices' Starbucks Ruling May Limit NLRB Injunction Wins

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Starbucks v. McKinney, adopting a more stringent test for National Labor Relations Board Section 10(j) injunctions, may lessen the frequency with which employers must defend against injunctions alongside parallel unfair labor practice charges, say David Pryzbylski and Colleen Schade at Barnes & Thornburg.