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?

A Delaware Superior Court ruled that an insurer must provide coverage for a derivative action filed during a renewed policy period, even though it related back to an earlier unreported books and records action. The decision hinged on the court's interpretation that the policy's related-claims exclusion only applied to matters previously reported under prior policies, not to all interrelated claims.

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.

Most companies treat intellectual property enforcement as patents and trademarks. Some of the damage that hits the P&L has nothing to do with copying your product or name. Instead, it is what a competitor says about its product, or about yours.

Facing trade secret misappropriation allegations requires swift strategic assessment. Understanding the Defend Trade Secrets Act and state law requirements can help companies identify early defenses, from statute of limitations challenges to insufficient trade secret identification, potentially saving resources and protecting reputation.

The State of Texas signed a ten-year lease for office space. When the State later terminated the lease and stopped paying rent, the landlord sued for breach of contract. In an ordinary commercial dispute, that would be an obvious claim. But in State v. Broadmoor Austin Associates,[1] the Fifteenth Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity barred it.

A&O Shearman's Texas-based securities litigation team examines the evolving landscape of federal securities litigation in the Fifth Circuit as public companies and financial institutions increasingly relocate to Texas.

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.

The State of Texas signed a ten-year lease for office space. When the State later terminated the lease and stopped paying rent, the landlord sued for breach of contract. In an ordinary commercial dispute, that would be an obvious claim. But in State v. Broadmoor Austin Associates,[1] the Fifteenth Court of Appeals held that sovereign immunity barred it.

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