Litigation

Subscribe to Litigation via RSS

Aerospace startups often begin with a dream to provide cheaper, better, or faster solutions for aviation and space flight, and the ambition to make that dream a reality.  Although optimism fuels innovation, as aerospace startups transition from venture funding into public markets, shareholders may misconstrue their forward-looking optimism as actionable promises. Diamond v. Firefly Aerospace Inc., et al. is a putative class action that highlights this tension.

Some of the most critical evidence at trial comes in the form of deposition testimony from witnesses who are unable to testify live at trial. Done right, deposition designations can powerfully support your case. Done poorly, they can confuse the jury or worse yet, be excluded. Below are six best practices for California practitioners to ensure your designations are both effective and admissible.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Eye Therapies, LLC v. Slayback Pharma, LLC  provides further insight into the tools available for patent claim construction. The Federal Circuit had previously held that a patent’s specification can evidence that the patentee intended for a term in the patent claims to have a different meaning than what is typical. Now, the Federal Circuit has held that the prosecution history—the exchanges between the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office and the patent applicant during the application process—can do the same.

We are keeping an eye on the progress of the reform of the English Arbitration Act 1996. The Arbitration Bill, first introduced in November 2023, was designed to update the Arbitration Act 1996 and reinforce England’s position as an attractive forum for international arbitration.

As noted in our most recent blog in this series, the bill was shelved when the 2024 English general election was called. However, in July 2024, the new Labour government reintroduced the bill and it resumes its journey through the UK parliament (tracker). The bill is currently in the upper house of the UK parliament, after which it will be introduced to the lower house for further debate, scrutiny and approval – if both houses agree. Given the support the bill has garnered to date, is likely to pass during the current legislative session (in late 2024 or early 2025).

The June 4, 2024 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Sidibe v. Sutter Health marks a potential shift in how rule of reason antitrust cases are approached and adjudicated. The opinion underscores the significance of historical evidence in antitrust trials and places considerable emphasis on analyzing the purpose behind challenged conduct.