This article discusses the current landscape for trade secrets as they relate to autonomous vehicles, and examines the competing objectives of requiring disclosure of internal information for public safety demands versus vehicle companies protecting their confidential information as trade secrets.
Litigation is now digital, but is it more efficient? With hybrid work, AI enhancements, and billions of dollars invested in legal tech, are we achieving the right goals of empowering litigators to spend more time on productive (and billable) work? The answer is clear — and surprising: no.
As law firms move from experimentation to real dependence on AI in their workflows, the bar is rising. The mandate is no longer “Can AI do it?” Now, it’s “Can AI help us do it precisely, responsibly and in a way that actually moves the business forward?” That’s where the human factor becomes nonnegotiable.
While the term ripeness may conjure up images of fruit or produce, in federal litigation it functions as a pragmatic barrier against premature judicial intervention. The plaintiffs in 61 E. Main St. Assoc., LLC v Vil. of Washingtonville felt the full force of this doctrine after their claims alleging unlawful, discriminatory delay in approving their project were dismissed as unripe for adjudication. The Southern District of New York reaffirmed the Second Circuit’s longstanding approach to zoning disputes: No Final Decision, No Federal Lawsuit.
Two federal courts recently issued rulings on notable issues impacting whether and how artists can terminate prior assignments of copyrights in their works.
In a post-Purdue world — where non-consensual third-party releases are prohibited — bankruptcy practitioners and courts alike have been required to consider and determine what exactly “consent” means for purposes of soliciting such releases.
During his speeches and testimonies before the Senate, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has retreated from the expansive “regulation by enforcement” approach of former SEC Chairman Gary Gensler and clarified that “policymaking will be done through notice and comment rulemaking.”
When Duracell filed suit against Energizer alleging that Energizer falsely claimed its “Energizer MAX lasts 10% longer than Duracell Power Boost,” the case seemed like just another round in the long-running rivalry between the Copper Top and the Energizer Bunny. But the lawsuit demonstrates that even the strongest brands in parity categories struggle to remain meaningfully different when the underlying technology is essentially the same.
When you compete on claims no one can verify, you risk losing the only thing that matters: the belief that your brand is worth the premium.
Second Circuit Affirms Federal Abstention from Action Contesting Validity of Ban On Income-Source Discrimination
