United States: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Under Washington State law, failing to act in a timely manner at any stage of a lawsuit, from pre-suit initiation through active litigation to post-judgment proceedings, can carry severe procedural and substantive consequences. These consequences range from the absolute bar of a claim or defense to monetary sanctions, evidentiary exclusions, dismissal of the action, and the loss of the right to appeal or collect on a judgment.

Organizations are increasingly turning to AI tools to streamline the preparation of corporate meeting minutes, but this technological shift brings both promising efficiencies and significant legal risks. From privilege concerns to data security vulnerabilities, the gap between AI-generated transcripts and carefully curated official records raises critical questions about governance, liability, and best practices.

When legal issues arise, many New Jersey businesses default to a "no comment" stance, believing silence protects them from liability. However, this approach can allow allegations to go unanswered, critical deadlines to pass, and manageable disputes to escalate into costly litigation. Understanding when silence serves your interests versus when it creates unnecessary risk is essential for protecting your business.

Director Squires issued written opinions in two recent PTAB proceedings examining critical threshold questions about prior art qualification. One case explored whether sufficient evidence supported an earlier invention date to antedate prior art, while the other determined if a reference was publicly accessible before the patent's priority date.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has begun processing IEEPA tariff refunds through its CAPE system, but Phase III covering finally liquidated entries faces delays and requires court orders. With the Department of Justice appealing the universal refund order and class certification pending, importers with finally liquidated entries may need to file individual lawsuits at the Court of International Trade to preserve their claims before statutory deadlines expire.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals examined whether a directors' and officers' liability policy's contractual liability exclusion could bar coverage for an entire multi-count lawsuit, or whether each legally distinct cause of action—breach of contract, fraud, and quantum meruit—must be assessed separately against the exclusion's terms. The decision addresses the critical question of how insurers must apply policy exclusions when a single complaint pleads multiple claims arising from the same und

Director Squires issued written opinions in two recent PTAB proceedings examining critical threshold questions about prior art qualification. One case explored whether sufficient evidence supported an earlier invention date to antedate prior art, while the other determined if a reference was publicly accessible before the patent's priority date.

After the fall of the Empire in China in 1912, and before the takeover of China by the Communists in 1949, there was a period in which a number of warlords controlled different areas of China. The United States felt that there was a need for certainty in the dealings of its citizens abroad therefore, for more than two decades in the early twentieth century, the United States maintained an unusual federal court on foreign soil—one that exercised full judicial authority over American citizens living and working in China.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has begun processing IEEPA tariff refunds through its CAPE system, but Phase III covering finally liquidated entries faces delays and requires court orders. With the Department of Justice appealing the universal refund order and class certification pending, importers with finally liquidated entries may need to file individual lawsuits at the Court of International Trade to preserve their claims before statutory deadlines expire.

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.