Expert Analysis

• Patent Lessons From 4 Federal Circuit Reversals In April

  

  Four Federal Circuit decisions in April that reversed or vacated underlying rulings provide a number of takeaways, including that obviousness analysis requires a flexible approach, that an invalidity issue of an expired patent can be moot, and more, say Denise De Mory and Li Guo at Bunsow De Mory.

• CFPB Poised To Up The Ante After Supreme Court Victory

  

  When the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically ruled last week that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure did not violate the Constitution, the agency boasted that it was "here to stay," signaling that it is moving full steam ahead with its regulatory, enforcement and supervisory agenda, says Jim Sandy at McGlinchey Stafford.

• 2nd Circ. Ruling Affirms NY Law's Creditor-Friendly Approach

  

  The Second Circuit’s recent ruling in 245 Park Member v. HNA International provides creditors with some reason for optimism that debtors in New York may face rejection in court for aiming to keep creditors at arm’s length by transferring personal assets into an LLC, says Jeff Newton at Omni Bridgeway.

• When Oral Settlements Reached In Mediation Are Enforceable

  

  A recent decision by the New Jersey Appellate Division illustrates the difficulties that may arise in trying to enforce an oral settlement agreement reached in mediation, but adherence to certain practices can improve the likelihood that such an agreement will be binding, says Richard Mason at MasonADR.

• Series

  Being An EMT Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  While some of my experiences as an emergency medical technician have been unusually painful and searing, the skills I’ve learned — such as triage, empathy and preparedness — are just as useful in my work as a restructuring lawyer, says Marshall Huebner at Davis Polk.

• In Debate Over High Court Wording, 'Wetland' Remains Murky

  

  Though the U.S. Supreme Court's decision limiting the Clean Water Act’s wetlands jurisdiction is now a year old, Sackett v. EPA's practical consequences for property owners are still evolving as federal agencies and private parties advance competing interpretations of the court's language and methods for distinguishing wetlands in lower courts, says Neal McAliley at Carlton Fields.

• Navigating Title VII Compliance And Litigation Post-Muldrow

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Muldrow v. St. Louis has broadened the scope of Title VII litigation, meaning employers must reassess their practices to ensure compliance across jurisdictions and conduct more detailed factual analyses to defend against claims effectively, say Robert Pepple and Christopher Stevens at Nixon Peabody.

• How CFPB Credit Card Rules Slot Into Broader Considerations

  

  Swirling legal challenges against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recent rulemaking concerning credit card late fees raise questions about how regulated entities should respond to the bureau's rules — and how quickly they should act, say Caitlin Mandel and Elizabeth Ireland at Winston & Strawn.

• Perspectives

  Public Interest Attorneys Are Key To Preserving Voting Rights

  

  Fourteen states passed laws restricting or limiting voting access last year, highlighting the need to support public interest lawyers who serve as bulwarks against such antidemocratic actions — especially in an election year, says Verna Williams at Equal Justice Works.

• Insurer Quota-Sharing Lessons From $112M Bad Faith Verdict

  

  In Indiana GRQ v. American Guarantee and Liability Insurance, an Indiana federal jury recently issued a landmark $112 million bad faith verdict, illustrating why insurers must understand the interplay between bad faith law and quota-sharing before entering into these relatively new arrangements, say Jason Reichlyn and Christopher Sakauye at Dykema. 

• Lessons On Challenging Class Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony

  

  In class actions seeking damages, plaintiffs are increasingly using expert opinions to establish predominance, but several recent rulings from California federal courts shed light on how defendants can respond, say Jennifer Romano and Raija Horstman at Crowell & Moring.

• Novel Applications May Fizzle After Fed Master Account Wins

  

  Two recent federal court rulings that upheld decisions denying master account applications from two fintech-focused banks are noteworthy for depository institutions with novel charters that wish to have direct access to the Federal Reserve's payment channels and settle transactions in central bank money, say attorneys at Davis Polk.

• Exploring An Alternative Model Of Litigation Finance

  

  A new model of litigation finance, most aptly described as insurance-backed litigation funding, differs from traditional funding in two key ways, and the process of securing it involves three primary steps, say Bob Koneck, Christopher Le Neve Foster and Richard Butters at Atlantic Global Risk LLC.

• Cell Therapy Cos. Must Beware Limits Of Patent Safe Harbors

  

  Though developers of gene and cell therapy products commonly assume that a legal safe harbor protects them from patent infringement suits, recent case law shows that not all preapproval uses of patented technology are necessarily protected, say Natasha Daughtrey and Joshua Weinger at Goodwin.

• Why Employers Shouldn't Overreact To Protest Activities

  

  Recent decisions from the First Circuit in Kinzer v. Whole Foods and the National Labor Relations Board in Home Depot hold eye-opening takeaways about which employee conduct is protected as "protest activity" and make a case for fighting knee-jerk reactions that could result in costly legal proceedings, says Frank Shuster at Constangy.