Expert Analysis

• Fed. Circ. Ruling Shows Importance Of Trial Expert Specificity

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in NexStep v. Comcast highlights how even a persuasive expert’s failure to fully explain the basis of their opinion at trial can turn a winning patent infringement argument into a losing one, say attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg.

• Think Like A Lawyer: Note 3 Simple Types Of Legal Complexity

  

  Cases can appear complex for several reasons — due to the number of issues, the volume of factual and evidentiary sources, and the sophistication of those sources — but the same basic technique can help lawyers tame their arguments into a simple and persuasive message, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Justices Mull Sex-Based Classification In Trans Law Case

  

  After the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in U.S. v. Skrmetti this week, it appears that the fate of the Tennessee law at the center of the case — a law banning gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents — will hinge on whether the majority read the statute as imposing a sex-based classification, says Alexandra Crandall at Dickinson Wright.

• Corporate Liability Issues To Watch In High Court TM Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a trademark dispute between Dewberry Group and Dewberry Engineers next week, presenting an opportunity for the court to drastically alter the fundamental approach to piercing the corporate veil, or adopt a more limited approach and preserve existing norms, say attorneys at Bracewell.

• Trending At The PTAB: Collateral Estoppel Continues Evolving

  

  We are starting to see brighter lines on collateral estoppel involving Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, illustrated by two recent cases that considered whether collateral estoppel should apply to factual findings on prior art from the PTAB in a later district court litigation, say attorneys at Finnegan.

• Series

  Gardening Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Beyond its practical and therapeutic benefits, gardening has bolstered important attributes that also apply to my litigation practice, including persistence, patience, grit and authenticity, says Christopher Viceconte at Gibbons.

• Takeaways From DOJ's Intervention On Pricing Algorithm Use

  

  A recent U.S. Justice Department amicus brief arguing that a Nevada federal judge wrongly focused on the nonbinding aspect of software company Cendyn Group's pricing algorithm underscores the growing challenge of determining when, if ever, pricing algorithms are legal, say attorneys at Rule Garza.

• ERISA Ruling Is A Win For DOL Regulatory Authority

  

  In Rappaport v. Guardian Life Insurance, a New York federal court recently issued a notable disability benefits ruling in finding that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright opinion does not affect how existing U.S. Department of Labor regulations apply in Employee Retirement Income Security Act litigation, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Litigation Inspiration: Reframing Document Review

  

  For attorneys — new ones especially — there is much fulfillment to find in document review by reflecting on how important, interesting and pleasant it can be, says Bennett Rawicki at Hilgers Graben.

• What Fed. Circ. Ruling Means For Patent Case Dismissals

  

  ​​​​​​​The Federal Circuit's recent decision in UTTO v. Metrotech is significant because it specifically authorizes district courts to dismiss patent infringement lawsuits without a separate Markman hearing, but only when the meaning of a claim term is clear and case-dispositive, says Peter Gergely at Merchant & Gould.

• 7th Circ. Travel Time Ruling Has Far-Reaching Implications

  

  In a case of first impression, the Seventh Circuit’s recent holding in Walters v. Professional Labor Group will have significant implications for employers that must now provide travel time compensation for employees on overnight assignments away from home, says Anthony Sbardellati at Akerman.

• The Fed. Circ. In October: Anti-Suit Injunctions And SEPs

  

  The Federal Circuit's holding in Ericsson v. Lenovo, a complex global case involving standard-essential patents, will likely have broad consequences for practitioners, including by making it easier to obtain an anti-suit injunction, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• 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.