Expert Analysis

• Justices' Trump Ballot Ruling: Purposivism In Textualist Garb

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump v. Anderson decision earlier this week, allowing former President Donald Trump to remain on state primary ballots, alleviates uncertainty and minimizes the potential for abuse in future cases, but is difficult to square with the court’s own account of its textualist interpretive methods, says Will Havemann at Hogan Lovells.

• Disney Copyright Expiration Spurs Trademark Questions

  

  While the recent expiration of Disney’s Steamboat Willie copyright is not likely to have an immediate impact, it could provide clarity on the extent to which trademark rights in character names and appearance affect what others can do with characters from works whose copyright has expired, says Bryan Wheelock at Harness IP.

• Texas Insurance Ruling Could Restore Finality To Appraisal

  

  The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. Safeco, determining that full payment of an appraisal award precludes recovery of attorney fees, indicates a potential return to an era in which timely payment undoubtedly disposes of all possible policyholder claims, says Karl Schulz at Cozen O'Connor.

• Think Like A Lawyer: Forget Everything You Know About IRAC

  

  The mode of legal reasoning most students learn in law school, often called “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion,” or IRAC, erroneously frames analysis as a separate, discrete step, resulting in disorganized briefs and untold obfuscation — but the fix is pretty simple, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Zero-Point Offender Eligibility May Hinge On Meaning Of 'And'

  

  Some white collar defendants’ eligibility for the new zero-point offender sentencing adjustment comes down to whether the word “and” really means “and” — a question the U.S. Supreme Court is set to resolve in its upcoming Pulsifer v. U.S. decision, which could affect thousands of incarcerated people, say Brandon McCarthy and Nikita Yogeshwarun at Katten.

• Valeant Ruling May Pave Way For Patent-Based FCA Suits

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Silbersher v. Valeant marks a significant development in False Claims Act jurisprudence, opens new avenues for litigation and potentially raises the stakes for patent applicants who intend to do business with the government, say Joshua Robbins and Rick Taché at Buchalter.

• A Former Bankruptcy Judge Talks 'Undue Hardship'

  

  Former U.S. bankruptcy judge Robert Gordon reflects on his journey from student borrower to judicial observer, highlighting the challenges faced by modern students burdened with student loan debt and advocating for reform in bankruptcy laws, particularly regarding the "undue hardship" element of discharge.

• Recent Rulings Add Dimension To Justices' Maui Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's 2020 decision in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund established new factual criteria for determining when the Clean Water Act applies to groundwater — and recent decisions from the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have clarified how litigants can make use of the Maui standard, says Steven Hoch at Clark Hill.

• Strategies For Single-Member Special Litigation Committees

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's recent order in the Baker Hughes derivative litigation allowing testimony from a single-member special litigation committee highlights the fact that, while single-member SLCs are subject to heightened scrutiny, they can also provide unique opportunities, says Josh Bloom at MoloLamken.

• 10th Circ. Ruling Means More Okla. Oilfield Pollution Litigation

  

  By applying Oklahoma's statutory definitions of pollution to a private landowner's claim for negligence for the first time, the Tenth Circuit's recent decision in Lazy S Ranch v. Valero will likely make it harder to obtain summary judgment in oilfield contamination cases, and will lead to more litigation, say attorneys at GableGotwals.

• Race Bias Defense Considerations After 11th Circ. Ruling

  

  In Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that the McDonnell Douglas test for employment discrimination cases is merely an evidentiary framework, so employers relying on it as a substantive standard of liability may need to rethink their litigation strategy, says Helen Jay at Phelps Dunbar.

• How Firms Can Ensure Associate Gender Parity Lasts

  

  Among associates, women now outnumber men for the first time, but progress toward gender equality at the top of the legal profession remains glacially slow, and firms must implement time-tested solutions to ensure associates’ gender parity lasts throughout their careers, say Kelly Culhane and Nicole Joseph at Culhane Meadows.

• Fed. Circ. In Feb.: Using Prior Products To Invalidate A Patent

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent Weber v. Provisu ruling, that prior-product operating manuals constituted printed publications that can be used to invalidate patents in an inter partes review proceeding, makes it easier for a petitioner to invalidate a patent, say Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm at Knobbe Martens.

• 7 Common Myths About Lateral Partner Moves

  

  As lateral recruiting remains a key factor for law firm growth, partners considering a lateral move should be aware of a few commonly held myths — some of which contain a kernel of truth, and some of which are flat out wrong, says Dave Maurer at Major Lindsey.

• What's At Stake In Pending Fed. Circ. Design Patent Test Case

  

  The full Federal Circuit recently heard argument in LKQ v. GM Global, a case concerning patent obviousness in the aftermarket for auto parts; the court's decision will likely influence how design patents are obtained, enforced and challenged, and affect the broader innovation ecosystem, says Larry DeMeo at Hunton.