4,287 results found

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in Slack Technologies v. Pirani, which presents the question of whether shareholders in a direct listing...

A federal court in Virginia recently granted a motion brought by equipment suppliers DET Diesel Emission Technologies, LLC and Synergy Catalyst, LLC, together doing business...

The Supreme Court of Texas has recently approved the final version of the new rules for cases seeking $100,000 or less (and more), which will become effective on March 1.

In Annex Books v. City of Indianapolis [pdf], No. 1:03-cv-918, U.S. Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker granted the defendants’ motion to compel the plaintiffs’ bookkeeping data, but held that the defendants would be required to pay all future costs and expenses associated with additional attempts to compile or import the data.

A California class action challenges the state's debt collector licensing fee structure, alleging that annual assessments imposed by the DFPI exceed reasonable regulatory costs, lack transparent calculation formulas, and violate Proposition 26. The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of approximately 1,243 licensed debt collectors statewide and could reshape how California structures licensing fees for financial services companies.

When I volunteered in Mexico last spring with two Proskauer colleagues alongside the Institute for Women in Migration (IMUMI), I witnessed a growing humanitarian crisis. The U.S.

Duane Morris Takeaway: The rise of class action litigation has fundamentally transformed the modern legal landscape, and we are proud to announce the publication of the Insurance Class Action Review – 2026...

Recent federal court decisions have established important precedents for insurance coverage in sex trafficking cases, particularly those involving hotel operators sued...

The Third Circuit affirmed denial of an injunction to prevent a biosimilar manufacturer from launching a biosimilar version of the blockbuster drug, Stelara (ustekinumab), under a third-party’s private label.

The Federal Circuit recently reviewed a patent infringement case involving communication systems that use non-uniform satellite constellations to transmit digital information. While the lower court had granted summary judgment on patent eligibility and found infringement, the appellate court reached a split decision on the validity of the patents. The case highlights the ongoing challenges in determining patent eligibility under the Alice framework, particularly for claims involving mathematical concepts ve

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a compilation that infringed copyrights in its constituent parts is not considered "one work" for purposes of 17 U.S.C. §504(c). Rather, each constituent part that infringes upon a copyright is subject to a separate statutory damages award. WB Music v. RTV Communications Group, Case No 04-3890, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 9889 (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2006) (Walker, C.J.).

Many patent practitioners have experienced the benefits of examiner interviews in achieving compact patent prosecution.

The Director of the USPTO has referred a PTAB decision to a Delegated Rehearing Panel to determine whether petitioners presented meaningfully different evidence compared to a district court jury trial that found the patent valid. The panel must address whether sufficient reason exists for the PTAB's unpatentability finding to differ from the jury's determination, and whether new claim mappings were timely submitted on remand.

Late last year, the Texas Supreme Court finalized amendments to several of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to coordinate with the transition to state-wide electronic filing.

California Governor signs Assembly Bill 2155, amending the state's arbitration law to align enforceability standards with federal requirements. The legislation creates a direct link between the Federal Arbitration Act and California Arbitration Act, establishing that agreements unenforceable under federal law will also be unenforceable under state law.

Delaware’s long-arm statute provides jurisdiction over defendants who are not residents of the State of Delaware.

In addition, the Delaware Court of Chancery Rule Amendments for Rules 96-98 reflects the revisions made to these various rules of the Delaware Court of Chancery.