Litigation

HB Ad Slot
HB Mobile Ad Slot

The National Law Review is a no-log-in resource of legal articles addressing litigation, trial practice, appellate practice, and alternative dispute resolution. We provide legal news on the most recent litigated business and commercial cases including antitrust, banking and financial institutions, construction, complex disputes/class actions involving multi-parties and multi-jurisdictions, communications, employment law, environmental actions, government enforcement defense, insurance, intellectual property, mergers and business combinations, products liability, professional liability, real estate and development, environmental, securities enforcement, white-collar criminal actions, and trust and estate litigation. Details of actions by federal and state and local regulatory agencies as well as private actions from across the U.S. are added daily.

The legal experts who write for the National Law Review cover the federal circuit courts as well as the Supreme Court, analyzing the decisions and opinions from the justices at these levels and parsing the meaning and greater context of these decisions.  For coverage of the circuit courts and the decisions at the Supreme Court, the National Law Review has breaking news coverage of these issues. Additionally, coverage of litigation as a process, including rules of evidence, jury selection, and information on expert witnesses is available on the site.

Along with traditional litigation, the National Law Review also covers alternate dispute resolution (ADR), as well as the viability of Arbitration Agreements in a variety of contexts. The benefits of mediation as opposed to litigation, and the benefits of arbitration.  Compulsory arbitration clauses in agreements relating to major corporations, shareholder agreements, or multinational agreements, are covered on the National Law Review.

Additionally, the National Law Review covers trends in -e-discovery and regulations in document analysis and trial preparation. 

We also serve as a resource for the latest developments in civil proceduree-discovery, trial practice, appellate practice, and alternative dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration involving both binding adversarial proceedings and non-binding voluntary procedures before neutral third parties.

National Law Review Litigation & Class Action Law TwitterFor hourly updates on the latest news about Litigation, Class Action Law Suits, Appellate Rulings, TCPA, and more, be sure to follow our Litigation Law X (formerly Twitter) feed, and sign up for complimentary e-news bulletins.

Recent Litigation, Trial, ADR, E-Discovery & Court News

Title
Custom text Organization Sort descending
Jul
31
2017
Inequitable Conduct Intent Prong Due to Litigation Misconduct Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
8
2021
Guangdong Higher People’s Court Rules for Tencent in China’s First Game Map Copyright Case Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
25
2023
Beijing IP Court Awards Dassault 20 Million RMB in CATIA Copyright Infringement Case Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
10
2022
Novartis v. Accord – No Limits on Negative Limitations? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
21
2022
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Releases 14th Five-Year Plan for Patent and Trademark Examination Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
14
2023
2022 Annual Report of the China National Intellectual Property Administration: 955,000 Patent Applications Were ‘Abnormal’ Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
26
2020
Shanghai People’s Procuratorate Launches Criminal Prosecution of Lego Block Infringers Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
3
2015
Another Claim Bites the Dust left by Teva v. Sandoz Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
20
2016
UCB v. Yeda R&D Co. – No “Safe Harbor” for Unamended Claims Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Oct
11
2016
Federal Circuit Affirms 101 Ineligibility of a Patent Claiming Detection of Unauthorized Access to Medical Information Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
28
2019
Barry v. Medtronic – Be Careful What You Use and Sell! Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
5
2014
Genetic Technologies v. Bristol Myers – 101 At Work Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Mar
20
2012
Supreme Court Reverses In Prometheus v. Mayo! Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Mar
26
2012
Supreme Court Remands In Myriad Appeal Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
26
2020
China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate Issues Top Example Cases of Criminal Intellectual Property Rights Infringement in 2019 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
3
2015
Ariosa v. Sequenom – Cert. Denied Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
21
2014
Eastern District of Virginia Decides PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) Decision to not institute IPR (Inter Partes Review) is Not Appealable Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
24
2014
Eastern District of Texas Denies SAP’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment in the Versata Patent Infringement Case Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
24
2012
Appellate Court Ruling Permits Continued NIH Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
8
2020
The China National Intellectual Property Administration Announces Top 10 Patent Invalidation Cases of 2019 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
28
2017
PTAB Dismisses Three IPR Petitions Based on Sovereign Immunity Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
24
2014
Chief Justice Rader of the Federal Circuit Steps Down – Prost Steps Up Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
20
2018
USPTO Memorandum Seeks to Clarify “Inventive Concept” Requirement Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
16
2021
Beijing Intellectual Property Court Affirms Jaguar Land Rover’s Win Against Landwind for Copying Evoque Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
2
2023
Hangzhou Issues “Implementation Rules of Hangzhou Municipal Intellectual Property Special Fund Allocation Factors” To Subsidize Foreign IP Litigation Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
4
2014
Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni Res. Foundation – Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Appeal Reexamination Loss Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
13
2020
Latest Decision by Supreme People’s Court Of China Confirms Validity of “Little i Robot” Patent in Blow to Apple Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Mar
19
2015
Enzo Biochem V. Applera Corp. – When “Words Can Hurt You” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
 

NLR Logo

We collaborate with the world's leading lawyers to deliver news tailored for you. Sign Up to receive our free e-Newsbulletins

 

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins