Lon A. Berk and Robert J. Morrow of Hunton & Williams write that as more and more companies are subjected to and become aware of the risk of being a part of interconnected electronic networks, more and more insurers are offering to cover that risk in exchange for a premium. Unfortunately, many of these insurers, whether intentionally or not, appear to be structuring their products in a manner that does not reflect the nature of e-commerce and its risks.
Christopher E. Loh and Christopher P. Hill of Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto write: Inter partes review is an adversarial process that involves discovery and depositions, is subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and culminates in oral argument. Although IPR in these respects resembles patent litigation, there are significant differences between the two that patent attorneys?particularly litigators who wish to participate in IPR?should bear in mind.
Robert B. Gibson and Jesse D. Capell of Heidell, Pittoni, Murphy & Bach write: While preparing for trial, litigators in medical malpractice lawsuits are inevitably confronted with the conundrum of how they will communicate to jurors the complex medical concepts involved in the case. Many jurors expect that information will be conveyed to them in a technologically sophisticated manner. With this in mind, an advocate who can use advanced technology to convey complicated medical information to lay people should have an advantage at trial.
Kristopher M. Hansen, Jayme T. Goldstein and Jonathan D. Canfield of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan write: A recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware illustrates the difficult balancing act that a court must undertake in the face of a post-bankruptcy auction objection and may have laid the foundation for expanding the previously limited circumstances in which a court will allow an auction to be reopened.