Expert Analysis

• IP Ruling Likely To Limit Arguments Against Qualified Experts

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Osseo v. Planmeca, clarifying when experts may offer testimony from the perspective of a skilled artisan, provides helpful guidance on expert qualifications and could quash future timing arguments regarding declarants' expertise, says Whitney Jenkins at Marshall Gerstein.

• Unpacking Arguments From High Court's Rural Hospital Case

  

  During oral arguments in Advocate v. Becerra, the U.S. Supreme Court justices focused questions on the meaning of being "entitled to" supplementary security income assistance, and there's reason for optimism that the likely split decision will break in favor of hospitals, say attorneys at King & Spalding.

• Args In 2 High Court Cases May Foretell Clarity For Employers

  

  Mary Anna Brand at Maynard Nexsen examines possible employment implications of two cases argued before the Supreme Court this fall, including a higher bar for justifying employees as overtime exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and earlier grants of prevailing party status for employee-plaintiffs seeking attorney fees.

• California Supreme Court's Year In Review

  

  Attorneys at Horvitz & Levy highlight notable decisions on major questions from the California Supreme Court's last term, including voter initiatives, hostile work environment and the economic loss rule.

• DC Circ. Decision Opens Door To NEPA Regulation Litigation

  

  A recent D.C. Circuit decision in Marin Audubon Society v. Federal Aviation Administration could open the door to more litigation over the White House Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act regulations, and could affect how many agencies conduct and interpret environmental assessments, say attorneys at ArentFox Schiff.

• Navigating 4th Circ.'s Antitrust Burden In Hybrid Relationships

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review the Fourth Circuit's Brewbaker decision, a holding that heightens the burden on antitrust prosecutors when the target companies have a hybrid horizontal-vertical relationship, but diverges from other circuits, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Dissecting The Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Debate

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Allergan v. MSN highlights the ongoing evolution of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine, revealing increasing tension between expiration-based interpretations and procedural flexibility, says Jeremy Lowe at Leydig Voit.

• Calif. Ruling May Shield Public Employers From Labor Claims

  

  In Stone v. Alameda Health System, the California Supreme Court recently exempted a county hospital from state-mandated rest breaks and the Private Attorneys General Act, granting government employers a robust new bulwark against other labor statutes by undermining an established doctrine for determining if a law applies to public entities, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Contract Disputes Recap: Perils Of Perfunctory Interpretation

  

  Attorneys at Seyfarth examine three recent decisions in which the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals and the Federal Circuit ruthlessly dismantled arguments that rely on superficial understandings of different contract terms.

• 2nd Circ. AmTrust Decision Shows Audit Reports Still Matter

  

  Though the Second Circuit eventually found on reconsidering a case over the high-profile accounting meltdown at AmTrust that audit reports are material to investors, its previous contrary holding highlights the seriousness of the ongoing crisis of confidence in the audit report, say attorneys at Bernstein Litowitz.

• Series

  Flying Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Achieving my childhood dream of flying airplanes made me a better lawyer — and a better person — because it taught me I can conquer difficult goals when I leave my comfort zone, focus on the demands of the moment and commit to honing my skills, says Ivy Cadle at Baker Donelson.

• 9th Circ.'s High Bar May Limit Keyword Confusion TM Claims

  

  A recent Ninth Circuit ruling that a law firm did not infringe upon a competitor’s trademarks by paying Google to promote its website when users searched for the rival’s name signals that plaintiffs likely can no longer win infringement suits by claiming competitive keyword advertising confuses internet-savvy consumers, say attorneys at Mitchell Silberberg.

• Post-Election Implications For The EPA's Methane Rules

  

  Amid the U.S. Supreme Court's recent denial of requests to halt implementation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's methane rule in two suits, and given the outcome of the election, a complete reversal of the methane rule is expected, but state-level policymaking and enforcement will continue, says John Watson at Spencer Fane.

• Opinion

  Justices Should Squash Bid To Criminalize Contract Breaches

  

  In Kousisis v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court should reject the sweeping legal theory that breaches of contract can satisfy the property element of the mail and wire fraud statutes, which, if validated, would criminalize an array of ordinary conduct and violate basic constitutional principles, say attorneys at The Norton Law Firm.

• Racing Patents To The Fed. Circ.: Collateral Estoppel Lessons

  

  As more and more parties find themselves in two different forums addressing the same issues and then competing in a race to the Federal Circuit, certain strategies can help despite unanswered questions on when Patent Trial and Appeal Board determinations trigger collateral estoppel, say attorneys at Akin.