Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 412: Listen and Learn -- Motions for Summary Judgment
What Litigants Need to Know about Summary Judgment
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tiffany v. Costco Raises Trademark Infringement, Counterfeiting Questions
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
Podcast: Non-binding Guidance: Examining FDA’s Enforcement Authority Over Stem Cell Clinics and Compounders
K&L Gates Triage: Avoiding the Risks Associated with Mandatory Vaccination Programs
EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1101 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2024) In the Federal Circuit’s only precedential patent opinion this week, the court addressed issues of infringement and admissibility that arose...more
Product liability claims require proof of causation. To be sure, they also require proof of some defect in the product and/or its accompanying warnings and product literature. But defect and causation are separate elements...more
A recent 104-page opinion from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Carrizosa v. Chiquita Brands International Inc. provides a tutorial on a wide variety of federal evidentiary, summary judgment, expert, and preservation...more
Expert witness testimony is a frequent (almost ubiquitous) feature of patent litigation, if only because questions of the state of the art or the understanding of one having ordinary skill in the art are almost always at...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Summary judgment plays an important role in litigation. So important, in fact, that many of our blog posts are devoted to the topic. Last week, my colleague Matthew Donovan discussed the policy against allowing successive...more
Most litigators are familiar with the requirement that a summary motion be supported with “evidentiary proof in admissible form” establishing the merits of a cause of action or defense....more
The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Sonner v. Schwabe N. Am., Inc. et al., resolves a split among district courts evaluating the standard that applies to false labeling claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition...more
In Woodrum v. Ga. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 815 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), the Court of Appeals of Georgia considered whether the lower court properly disqualified a contractor as an expert witness and excluded the...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed a case brought by the SEC against an individual broker accused of violations of Section 17(A) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act...more
The Pennsylvania Superior Court recently issued an opinion in Walsh v. BASF Corp. addressing the gatekeeper role of the trial judge when reviewing and ruling on the admissibility of expert causation opinions. The PA Superior...more
TCPA Plaintiffs often utilize overly broad discovery demands in an effort to bludgeon a caller into settling an otherwise meritless case. One of the most common tactics is serving boilerplate demands seeking a Defendant’s...more
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini commented on a case in which a former financial advisor of JPMS claimed his employment was terminated based on racial discrimination. Through application of the three-part burden...more
Some cases present issues that are difficult for the parties to litigate or for the courts to decide. But those cases tend to be the exception. Much of litigation—at least when practiced successfully—requires the mastery of a...more
Appellate Court Advance Release Opinions: AC38487 - State v. Elias V. - AC37672 - Doe v. West Hartford - The issue in this case was whether process was delivered to the marshall the day before the expiration of...more
Supreme Court Advance Release Opinions: SC19359 - Persels & Associates, LLC v. Banking Commissioner - Noting that it has generally been the policy of the Courts to defer to the Legislature, especially as to the...more
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Failure-to-Warn Claim Against Drug Manufacturer Not Preempted Because There Was No “Clear Evidence” FDA Would Not Have Approved Plaintiffs’ Suggested Warning; Also Holds...more