Kathy Robb, a partner at Hunton & Williams, writes: It is not surprising that water-related litigation in the courts, and regulatory developments that are likely to generate more litigation, are increasing. Two key factors drive the disputes: population growth and drought. In the United States, water supply is no longer a concern limited to the arid west.
Steven F. Napolitano and Brittany M. Dorman of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom write: Though subsequent remedial measures are most commonly associated with product liability litigation, New York courts apply this doctrine in other types of litigation as well, often in creative ways. Thus, plaintiff and defense counsel must keep informed of developing case law in this area, and give advance thought as to how such potentially powerful evidence could get before the jury in a particular case.
Richard F. Martinelli and Nicholas H. Lam of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe write: There is one case on the U.S. Supreme Court’s patent-heavy docket this term that has the potential to impact every issued patent. ‘Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments’ has the potential for such broad impact because it addresses how precise patentees must be in defining their invention; in patent parlance, the issue is called indefiniteness.
Jennifer Hurley Mcgay and Sujata M. Tanikella of Bingham McCutchen write: The predominance of email has forced courts to confront the question of whether—and when—emails may be admissible under Rule 803(6). The answer to this question varies considerably across jurisdictions and even among district courts within the same judicial circuit.