United States: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Recent amendments to Arizona Rule 702 and federal court decisions have fundamentally shifted how courts evaluate expert appraisal testimony in eminent domain cases. Courts now apply more rigorous gatekeeping standards, requiring proponents to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that expert opinions rest on sufficient data and reliable methodology before reaching the jury.

Artificial intelligence is transforming boardroom governance, enabling directors to research, draft, and analyze information with unprecedented efficiency. However, this convenience introduces significant risks...

Recent patent litigation orders from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts reveal critical claim construction disputes and discovery rulings that shape the boundaries of patent enforcement. How do courts balance claim definiteness requirements with the practical realities of patent scope, and what standards govern third-party discovery in indirect infringement cases?

Recent amendments to Arizona Rule 702 and federal court decisions have fundamentally shifted how courts evaluate expert appraisal testimony in eminent domain cases. Courts now apply more rigorous gatekeeping standards, requiring proponents to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that expert opinions rest on sufficient data and reliable methodology before reaching the jury.

The California Supreme Court rejected a novel negligence theory that would have let plaintiffs sue manufacturers over nondefective products for not developing a “better” alternative sooner.

Celsius Network's bankruptcy estate has commenced thousands of avoidance actions against former customers to recover cryptocurrency withdrawn in the 90 days before filing.

Recent amendments to Arizona Rule 702 and federal court decisions have fundamentally shifted how courts evaluate expert appraisal testimony in eminent domain cases. Courts now apply more rigorous gatekeeping standards, requiring proponents to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that expert opinions rest on sufficient data and reliable methodology before reaching the jury.

The UK High Court has ruled on whether lisdexamfetamine (LDX), a pro-drug with no therapeutic activity before conversion to dextroamphetamine, can be considered an "active ingredient" for supplementary protection certificate purposes. This decision addresses a critical question in pharmaceutical patent law that has produced divergent outcomes across European jurisdictions and is currently before the CJEU in multiple pending referrals.

In CreateAI Holdings, Inc. f/k/a TuSimple Holdings, Inc. v. Bot Auto TX Inc., the Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a Texas Business Court’s denial of a temporary injunction in an autonomous trucking trade secret dispute. The court’s memorandum opinion recognizes that mere suspicion and a competitor’s rapid success are insufficient to warrant injunctive relief. Instead, plaintiffs must produce evidence that specific, protectable secrets existed and were actually misappropriated.

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.