LJN Newsletters

The lawyers who are best at business developemnt are the ones who consistently grow strong books of business, aren’t “selling” in the traditional sense. They’re not always trying to “close” the next deal. Instead, they’ve adopted a different mindset. One that’s resilient, generous, and surprisingly childlike.

A computer scientist is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to extend copyright protection to works created entirely by artificial intelligence in one of the first cases to reach the justices about the revolutionary technology.

Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary JudgmentFederal Circuit Concludes That Two Organizations Lack Associational Standing to Challenge USPTO’s Denial of Petition for Rulemaking

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to commence its term on October 6. Among the cases it will review are several appeals concerning copyright and trademark law. One notable case seeks to address procedural inconsistencies and claims of unconstitutional vagueness attributed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

A three-judge panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals held last month that receivers directing insolvent marijuana companies can reject burdensome leases and disregard contract provisions that could lead to widespread defaults.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Purdue, which held that nonconsensual third-party releases are impermissible under the Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy judges across multiple jurisdictions have been grappling with what constitutes a “consensual” release. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024). This article analyzes how different judges have defined “consent” and provides guidance on best practices for structuring third-party releases.

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion focused on answering the core question presented — whether jurisdiction is determined by statute, rather than by a debtor’s financial condition. It reasoned that since the Constitution grants Article III power over “all cases arising under the laws of the United States” and the Bankruptcy Code is a law under the United States, the petition to reorganize under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is clearly within the judicial ambit of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.

In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that a bankruptcy court’s decision to lift the automatic stay of pending litigation imposed by the Bankruptcy Code is a final, appealable order. But what if a bankruptcy court lifts the stay and later reimposes it? Is the latter order also immediately appealable, or is it considered interlocutory?