As the economy continues to globalize, so too does the reach of antitrust law. Two recent cases illustrate the interaction between international trade and U.S. antitrust law: Biocad v. F. Hoffman-La-Roche Ltd. and In re Capacitors Antitrust Litigation. These cases invoke the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act, which creates exceptions to the jurisdiction limiting language of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and exposes defendants to liability for conduct involving import and export trade or commerce. As the law evolves to keep up with changing trade and practices, the underlying principle to protect competition remains the same. Continue Reading
When it overturned a federal court’s order suppressing a litigant’s right to publicly gripe about a pending suit late last month, the Ninth Circuit took the opportunity to remind those of us in the legal profession that we are held to a different, higher standard when it comes to public comment on litigation. In an early footnote in the Court’s opinion in In re Dan Farr Productions, the Ninth Circuit distinguished the instant case from its prior decision in Levine v. U.S. Dist. Court, noting that counsel “are officers of the court subject to fiduciary and ethical obligations” which “do not apply to non-attorney participants.” Slip Op. at fn. 3. Continue Reading
Last month, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales granted permission for Eurasian Natural Resources Corp. Ltd. (“ENRC”) to appeal the May 2017 decision by the High Court relating to a dispute over the legal professional privilege with the Serious Fraud Office (“SFO”). The Court of Appeal will likely hear the case next year. Continue Reading
In the past several months, China has adopted new arbitration rules and unveiled a new arbitration center to help resolve the inevitable international disputes arising from the development of The Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, commonly referred to as the One Belt One Road Initiative.
Although China is a signatory to the New York Arbitration Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, China has been considered a difficult jurisdiction for international arbitration because few Chinese judges and lawyers are familiar with the relevant law. Between 1994 and 2004, Chinese courts enforced just 37 percent of foreign arbitral awards. Continue Reading
On October 16, 2017, the Supreme Court agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision in United States v. Microsoft Corp., a case that highlights the current tension between law enforcement needs and privacy concerns in a rapidly changing digital landscape. Continue Reading
On July 11, 2017, the Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of a case in which it is expected to finally decide, conclusively, whether Florida courts are to apply the Frye or Daubert standard to determine admissibility of expert or scientific evidence.
The Frye standard, which was adopted in Florida in 1952, applies to expert testimony based upon new or novel scientific evidence. Under the Frye standard, “in order to introduce expert testimony deduced from a scientific principle or discovery, the principle or discovery ‘must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’” Continue Reading
Last week, a federal judge in California denied the plaintiff’s motions to disqualify the defendant’s counsel, finding that the firm’s former representation of the plaintiff was not sufficiently recent, substantial, or substantively related to the firm’s current representation of the defendant to warrant disqualification.
The plaintiff, IPS Group, Inc., brought two related lawsuits against Duncan Solutions, Inc., for patent infringement — one in July 2015 and another in March 2017. In June 2017, the law firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo P.C. (“Mintz”) joined the defense teams representing Duncan in both matters. IPS Group made two “virtually identical” motions in July to disqualify Mintz in each case, arguing that (1) IPS Group was a current client of Mintz, so concurrent representation of IPS Group and Duncan was a breach of the duty of loyalty, and alternatively, (2) IPS Group was a former client of Mintz, who had obtained confidential information from IPS Group material to Mintz’s current representation of Duncan. Continue Reading