Expert Analysis

• Regulating Resurrected Species Under The ESA

  

  As the prospect of extinct species being resurrected from DNA and reintroduced into the wild grows closer, an analysis of the Endangered Species Act suggests that it could provide a thoughtful, flexible governance framework for such scenarios, say Caroline Meadows and Shelby Bobosky at the SMU Dedman School of Law.

• E-Discovery Quarterly: Recent Rulings On Text Message Data

  

  Electronically stored information on cellphones, and in particular text messages, can present unique litigation challenges, and recent court decisions demonstrate that counsel must carefully balance what data should be preserved, collected, reviewed and produced, say attorneys at Sidley.

• What CRA Deadline Means For Biden Admin. Rulemaking

  

  With the 2024 election rapidly approaching, the Biden administration must race to finalize proposed agency actions within the next few weeks, or be exposed to the chance that the following Congress will overturn the rules under the Congressional Review Act, say attorneys at Covington.

• 5 Takeaways From FDA's Biosimilars Promotion Guidance

  

  New draft guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration expands upon other recent efforts to clarify expectations for biosimilar and interchangeable labeling, highlighting a number of potential missteps that could draw attention from regulators, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Dual-Track IPO-M&A Exit Strategies For Life Science Cos.

  

  A dual-track process for life sciences companies offers a proven path to securing favorable deal terms for an exit, and strategic moves can include running a crossover financing round in the lead-up, say attorneys at McDermott.

• Does Expert Testimony Aid Preliminary IPR Responses?

  

  Dechert attorneys analyze six years of patent owners' preliminary responses to inter partes review petitions to determine whether the elimination of the presumption favoring the petitioner as to preinstitution testimonial evidence affected the usefulness of expert testimony in responses.

• Are Concessions In FDA's Lab-Developed Tests Rule Enough?

  

  Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's new policy for laboratory-developed tests included major strategic concessions to help balance patient safety, access and diagnostic innovation, the new rule may well face significant legal challenges in court, say Dominick DiSabatino and Audrey Mercer at Sheppard Mullin.

• Rebuttal

  Double-Patenting Ruling Shows Terminal Disclaimers' Value

  

  While a recent Law360 guest article seems to argue that the Federal Circuit’s Cellect decision last year robs patent owners of lawful patent term, the ruling actually identifies how terminal disclaimers are the solution to the problem of obviousness-type double patenting, say Jane Love and Robert Trenchard at Gibson Dunn.

• Series

  Swimming Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Years of participation in swimming events, especially in the open water, have proven to be ideal preparation for appellate arguments in court — just as you must put your trust in the ocean when competing in a swim event, you must do the same with the judicial process, says John Kulewicz at Vorys.

• Mid-2024 FCA Enforcement And Litigation Trends To Watch

  

  Reviewing notable False Claims Act trends and enforcement efforts in the last year and a half reveals that healthcare is a key enforcement priority for the U.S. Department of Justice, and the road ahead may bring clarification on Anti-Kickback Statute causation and willfulness standards, along with increased focus on private equity, cybersecurity and self-disclosure, say attorneys at Epstein Becker.

• What 100 Federal Cases Suggest About Changes To Chevron

  

  With the U.S. Supreme Court poised to overturn or narrow its 40-year-old doctrine of Chevron deference, a review of 100 recent federal district court decisions confirm that changes to the Chevron framework will have broad ramifications — but the magnitude of the impact will depend on the details of the high court's ruling, say Kali Schellenberg and Jon Cochran at LeVan Stapleton.

• 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.

• Microplastics At The Crossroads Of Regulation And Litigation

  

  Though there are currently not many federal regulations specifically addressing microplastics as pollutants, regulatory scrutiny and lawsuits asserting consumer protection claims are both on the rise, and manufacturers should take proactive steps to implement preventive measures accordingly, say Aliza Karetnick and Franco Corrado at Morgan Lewis.

• 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.

• Tylenol MDL Highlights Expert Admissibility Headaches

  

  A New York federal court's decision to exclude all plaintiff experts in a multidistrict litigation concerning prenatal exposure to Tylenol highlights a number of expert testimony pitfalls that parties should avoid in product liability and mass tort matters, say Rand Brothers and Courtney Block at Winston & Strawn.