sa¹ú¼Ê´«Ã½

Expert Analysis

• How McKesson Ruling Will Inform Interpretations Of The TCPA

  

  Amid the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson, we can expect to see both plaintiffs and defendants utilizing the decision to revisit the Federal Communications Commission's past Telephone Consumer Protection Act interpretations and decisions they did not like, says Jason McElroy at Saul Ewing.

• Justices Rethink Minimum Contacts For Foreign Entities

  

  Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Devas v. Antrix and Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, suggest that federal statutes may confer personal jurisdiction over foreign entities that have little to no contact with the U.S. — a significant departure from traditional due process principles, says Gary Shaw at Pillsbury.

• Opinion

  High Court Must Overrule Outdated Patent Eligibility Doctrine

  

  A certiorari petition should directly ask the U.S. Supreme Court to correct its 1972 patent decision in Gottschalk v. Benson, the critical point where patent eligibility law veered from the statutory text toward judicial policymaking, says Robert Greenspoon at Dunlap Bennett.

• Examining TCPA Jurisprudence A Year After Loper Bright

  

  One year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, lower court decisions demonstrate that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act will continue to evolve as long-standing interpretations of the act are analyzed with a fresh lens, says Aaron Gallardo at Kilpatrick.

• Gauging The Risky Business Of Business Risk Disclosures

  

  With the recent rise of securities fraud actions based on external events — like a data breach or environmental disaster — that drive down stock prices, risk disclosures have become more of a sword for the plaintiffs bar than a shield for public companies, now the subject of a growing circuit split, say attorneys at A&O Shearman.

• How Justices' Ruling Limits Options To Challenge DHS Orders

  

  In Riley v. Bondi, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a 30-day deadline for challenging deportation orders begins when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issues a final administrative review order, opening the door for the government to effectively bar circuit court review in future similar cases, says Kevin Gregg at Kurzban Kurzban.

• Series

  Playing The Violin Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Playing violin in a string quartet reminds me that flexibility, ambition, strong listening skills, thoughtful leadership and intentional collaboration are all keys to a successful legal practice, says Julie Park at MoFo.

• Purdue Case Could Transform Patent Obviousness Analyses

  

  If accepted for review by the U.S. Supreme Court, Purdue Pharma v. Accord Healthcare — concerning whether Purdue's abuse-deterrent opioid formulation patents were invalid as obvious — could significantly shift how courts weigh secondary considerations in patent obviousness analyses, say attorneys at Lathrop.

• NM Cyber Ruling Will Spur Litigation As Coverage Remedy

  

  In Kane v. Beazley, the New Mexico Court of Appeals recently found that a cyber liability provision insuring security breaches included coverage for funds transfer fraud, implicitly and incorrectly motivating policyholders to commence litigation to avoid contractual limitations on cyber coverages, say attorneys at Zelle.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Practicing Self-Care

  

  Law schools don’t teach the mental, physical and emotional health maintenance tools necessary to deal with the profession's many demands, but practicing self-care is an important key to success that can help to improve focus, manage stress and reduce burnout, says Rachel Leonard​​​​​​​ at MG+M.

• Texas' Cactus Ruling Clarifies 'Produced Water' Rules

  

  The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Cactus Water Services v. COG Operating, holding that mineral interest lessees have the rights to water extracted alongside oil and gas, should benefit industry players by clarifying the rules — but it leaves important questions about royalties unresolved, say attorneys at Yetter Coleman.

• ABA Opinion Makes It A Bit Easier To Drop A 'Hot Potato'

  

  The American Bar Association's recent ethics opinion clarifies when attorneys may terminate clients without good cause, though courts may still disqualify a lawyer who drops a client like a hot potato, so sending a closeout letter is always a best practice, say attorneys at Thompson Hine.

• How Political Divisions Are Stalling Pa. Energy Development

  

  Despite possessing the nation's second-largest natural gas reserves and a legacy of energy infrastructure, Pennsylvania faces a fragmented and politically charged path to developing the energy resources it will need in the future, thanks to legislative gridlock, divided public opinion and competing energy interests, says Andrew Levine at Stradley Ronon.

• How High Court Ruling Can Aid Judgment Enforcement In US

  

  In CC/Devas (Mauritius) v. Antrix, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that only two steps are required to keep a foreign sovereign in federal court, making it a little easier for investors to successfully bring foreign states and sovereign-owned and -controlled entities into U.S. courts, says Kristie Blase at Felicello Law.

• What High Court's Tenn. Trans Care Ruling Means Nationally

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors, is fairly limited in scope and closely tailored to the specific language of Tennessee's law, but it may have implications for challenges to similar laws in other states, say attorneys at Hall Render.