Expert Analysis

• Patent Damages Jury Verdicts Aren't Always End Of The Story

  

  Recent outcomes demonstrate that patent damages jury verdicts are often challenged and are overturned approximately one-third of the time, and successful verdict challenges typically occur at the appellate level and concern patent validity and infringement, say James Donohue and Marie Sanyal at Charles River.

• Justices' Title VII Ruling Requires Greater Employer Vigilance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Muldrow v. St. Louis ruling expands the types of employment decisions that can be challenged under Title VII, so employers will need to carefully review decisions that affect a term, condition or privilege of employment, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• End Of Acquitted Conduct Sentencing Can Spark More Reform

  

  The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s recent end to factoring acquitted conduct into federal sentences could signal the start of a more constitutionally sound advisory scheme, but Congress and the Supreme Court must first authorize the commission to resolve two constitutional errors baked into its guidelines, say Mark Allenbaugh at SentencingStats.com and Alan Ellis at the Law Offices of Alan Ellis.

• NY Tax Talk: Primary Function Is Key Analysis For Sales Tax

  

  Two sales tax cases recently decided by New York's Appellate Division illustrate why both taxpayers and the state's Department of Revenue subscribe to the primary function test, a logical way to determine whether business transactions are subject to sales tax, say Elizabeth Cha and Jeremy Gove at Eversheds Sutherland.

• Notable Q1 Updates In Insurance Class Actions

  

  Mark Johnson and Mathew Drocton at BakerHostetler discuss notable insurance class action decisions from the first quarter of the year ranging from salvage vehicle titling to rate discrimination based on premium-setting software.

• Why High Court May Have Rejected IP Obviousness Appeal

  

  Attorneys at Womble Bond analyze possible reasons the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Vanda Pharmaceuticals' request to review the Federal Circuit’s reasonable expectation of success standard for determining obviousness, including that the court was unpersuaded by the company's argument that Amgen v. Sanofi places a bind on drug developers.

• Opinion

  Time To Fix NYC's Broken Property Assessment System

  

  A New York appellate court's decision to revive Tax Equity Now New York v. City of New York may force the city to revamp its outdated and unfair real estate tax assessment system, which could be fixed with a couple of simple changes, says Seth Feldman at Romer Debbas.

• Ill. Justices' Ruling Answers Corporate Defamation Questions

  

  The Illinois Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Project44 v. FourKites provides needed certainty and direction for lower courts considering defamation cases involving communications to corporate officers from third parties outside the corporation, which could result in fewer unwarranted motions to dismiss in trial courts and nonmeritorious appeals, says Phillip Zisook at Schoenberg Finkel.

• As Arbitrator Bias Claims Rise, Disclosure Standards Evolve

  

  The growth in post-award challenges based on arbitrators' alleged conflicts of interest has led to the release of new guidance and new case law on the topic — both supporting the view that professional familiarity alone does not translate to a lack of impartiality, say attorneys at Skadden.

• 6th Circ. Bias Ruling Shows Job Evaluations Are Key Defense

  

  In Wehrly v. Allstate, the Sixth Circuit recently declined to revive a terminated employee’s federal and state religious discrimination and retaliation claims, illustrating that an employer’s strongest defense in such cases is a documented employment evaluation history that justifies an adverse action, says Michael Luchsinger at Segal Mccambridge.

• Social Media Free Speech Issues Are Trending At High Court

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision examining what constitutes state action on social media can be viewed in conjunction with oral arguments in two other cases to indicate that the court sees a need for more clarity regarding how social media usage implicates the First Amendment, say attorneys at Kean Miller.

• The Fed. Circ. In April: Hurdles Remain For Generics

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent Salix v. Norwich ruling — where Salix's brand-name drug's patents were invalidated — is a reminder to patent practitioners that invalidating a competitor's patents may not guarantee abbreviated new drug application approval, say Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm at Knobbe Martens.

• Bankruptcy Ruling Shifts Lease Rejection Claim Calculation

  

  A New York federal court’s recent ruling in In re: Cortlandt provides guidance on how to calculate a landlord's damages claim when a bankruptcy debtor rejects a lease, changing from an approach that considers the remaining rent due under the lease to one that considers the remaining time, say Bethany Simmons and Noah Weingarten at Loeb & Loeb.

• Don't Use The Same Template For Every Client Alert

  

  As the old marketing adage goes, consistency is key, but law firm style guides need consistency that contemplates variety when it comes to client alert formats, allowing attorneys to tailor alerts to best fit the audience and subject matter, says Jessica Kaplan at Legally Penned.

• 10b-5 Litigation Questions Follow Justices' Macquarie Ruling

  

  Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Macquarie v. Moab that pure omissions are not actionable under U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b–5(b), creating a slightly higher bar for plaintiffs and setting the stage for further litigation over several issues, say Steve Quinlivan and Sean Colligan at Stinson.