ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ

Expert Analysis

• How Del. Supreme Court, Legislature Have Clarified 'Control'

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's January decision in In re: Oracle and the General Assembly's passage of amendments to the Delaware General Corporation Law this week, when taken together, help make the controlling-stockholder analysis clearer and more predictable for companies with large stockholders, say attorneys at Baker Botts.

• Service By Token Is Transforming Crypto Litigation Landscape

  

  As the Trump administration advocates a new course of cryptocurrency regulation, courts in the U.S. and abroad are authorizing innovative methods of process service, including via nonfungible tokens and blockchain messaging, offering practical solutions for litigators grappling with the anonymity of cyber defendants, says Jose Ceide at Salazar Law.

• Fed. Circ. In Feb.: Lessons On Cases With Many Patent Claims

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision in Kroy IP v. Groupon last month establishes that inter partes review petitioners cannot rely on collateral estoppel to invalidate patent claims after challenging a smaller subset, highlighting the benefit that patent owners may gain from seeking patents with many claims, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• PG&E Win Boosts Employers' Defamation Defense

  

  A California appeals court's recent Hearn v. PG&E ruling, reversing a $2 million verdict against PG&E related to an ex-employee’s retaliation claims, provides employers with a stronger defense against defamation claims tied to termination, but also highlights the need for fairness and diligence in internal investigations and communications, say attorneys at Kaufman Dolowich.

• Justices' False Statement Ruling Curbs Half-Truth Liability

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Thompson v. U.S. decision clarified that a federal statute used to prosecute false statements made to bank regulators only criminalizes outright falsehoods, narrowing prosecutors’ reach and providing defense counsel a stronger basis to challenge indictments of merely misleading statements, says Tamara de Silva at De Silva Law Offices.

• Jurisdiction Argument In USAID Dissent Is Up For Debate

  

  A dissent refuting the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent order directing the U.S. Agency for International Development to pay $2 billion in frozen foreign aid argued that claims relating to already-completed government contract work belong in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims – answering an important question, but with a debatable conclusion, says Steven Gordon at Holland & Knight.

• Firms Still Have Lateral Market Advantage, But Risks Persist

  

  Partner and associate mobility data from the fourth quarter of 2024 shows that we’re in a new, stable era of lateral hiring where firms have the edge, but leaders should proceed cautiously, looking beyond expected revenue and compensation analyses for potential risks, say Julie Henson and Greg Hamman at Decipher Investigative Intelligence.

• Opinion

  We Must Allow Judges To Use Their Independent Judgment

  

  As two recent cases show, the ability of judges to access their independent judgment crucially enables courts to exercise the discretion needed to reach the right outcome based on the unique facts within the law, says John Siffert at Lankler Siffert & Wohl.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: March Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class actions appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses three federal appellate court decisions and identifies practice tips from cases involving antitrust allegations against coupon processing services, consumer fraud and class action settlements.

• High Court Water Permit Ruling Lacks Specificity

  

  The enforcement impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in San Francisco v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not be significant, because while the ruling makes clear that certain water permit provisions must instruct permittees on how to achieve stated goals, it doesn’t clarify the level of necessary instruction, says Daniel Deeb at ArentFox Schiff.

• The Central Issues Facing Fed. Circ. In Patent Damages Case

  

  The en banc Federal Circuit's pending review of EcoFactor v. Google could reshape how expert damages opinions are argued, and could have ripple effects that limit jury awards, say attorneys at McAndrews Held.

• Series

  Performing Stand-Up Comedy Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Whether I’m delivering a punchline on stage or a closing argument in court, balancing stand-up comedy performances and my legal career has demonstrated that the keys to success in both endeavors include reading the room, landing the right timing and making an impact, says attorney Rebecca Palmer.

• Series

  Adapting To Private Practice: From SEC To BigLaw

  

  As I adjusted to the multifaceted workflow of a BigLaw firm after leaving the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, working side by side with new colleagues on complex matters proved the fastest way to build a deep rapport and demonstrate my value, says Jennifer Lee at Jenner & Block.

• How Fed. Circ. Ruling Complicates Patent Infringement Cases

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision last month in Kroy IP Holdings v. Groupon may make defending patent infringement claims more challenging, time-consuming and expensive — but it has also complicated similar patent infringement proceedings involving the same patents and their appeals, say attorneys at Norton Rose.

• The Revival Of Badie Arbitration Suits In Consumer Finance

  

  Plaintiffs have recently revived a California appellate court's almost 30-year-old decision in Badie v. Bank of America to challenge arbitration requirements under the Federal Arbitration Act, raising issues banks and credit unions in particular should address when amending arbitration provisions, say attorneys at Orrick.