The Three C’s for Addressing Prior Inconsistent Statements
Podcast - Part II: Being an Expert Is a Lonely Business
Understanding Discovery in Commercial Litigation
Follow the Rules … Most of the Time
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 313: Spotlight on Criminal Law (Part 3)
Divorce Fees: When Your Spouse Might Have to Pay
Key Discovery Points: Navigating Clawbacks When In-House Counsel Are Included
Podcast - Part I: Being an Expert Is a Lonely Business
Key Discovery Points: Do Your Best to Avoid Discovery Shenanigans!
Hsu Untied interview with Ed Reines, Partner at Jones Day
Key Discovery Points: Be Willing to Agree and Compromise When It Comes to Hyperlinks
Podcast: Don't Just Say It – Show It
Feeling the Heat: Strategies to Keep Cool Under California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Litigation Communications Strategies for High-Stakes Cases: On Record PR
Harnessing AI in Litigation: Techniques, Opportunities, and Risks – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Podcast - Finding Common Ground
Podcast - "Ready for Trial?"
Harnessing the Power of eDiscovery: The Revolution of AI and Technology in Litigation and Investigations - The Consumer Finance Podcast
The Future of Litigation: Adapting to the Era of Nuclear Verdicts
The JustPod: A murder-for-hire allegation, public corruption trial, and notable acquittal
The Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending...more
In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more
In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied a patent owner’s motion to terminate an inter partes review proceeding finding that the unidirectional nature of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) renders common-law claim...more
There is no doubt that “the potential for estoppel is one of the important considerations for defendants in deciding whether or not to file an [inter partes review (“IPR”)] petition.” Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel...more