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
Apr
3
2017
ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco IPR Petitions Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Oct
14
2022
China’s Supreme People’s Court: Incorrect PCT Applicant Has Good Faith Duty to Actual Rightsholder Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
2
2013
SAP Moves for a Stay of Parallel Federal Circuit Action After Patent Trial and Appeal Board Win Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
31
2013
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Grants Motion for Early Termination of Proceeding Before Covered Business Method Trial Institution Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
29
2015
Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corporation (NDCA 2015): Five TV Guide Patents Dropped by Abstract Idea Ineligibility Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
17
2020
China and EU Sign Agreement to Protect Each Others’ Geographic Indications Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Oct
11
2018
Philips Standard of Claim Construction to be Used by PTAB in “AIA Proceedings” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
13
2011
Supreme Court: Evidence Of Invalidity Must Be “Clear And Convincing” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
30
2011
“Particular Machine” not required: Ex Parte Dietz et al., Appeal 2009-008029, BPAI Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
18
2021
Strathclyde v. Clear-Vu – A Class in Obviousness Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
26
2011
Patent Office Proposes New Materiality Rules Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
17
2020
Prosecution Guidance from the Fed. Cir. – How to Forfeit Arguments During Your Appeal Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
9
2018
Kumar v. Iancu – The Dangers of an Overstuffed Preamble/Note on 37 CFR Part 4. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
23
2020
HTC Wins 6.5 Million RMB and Injunction against Chinese Patent Infringers Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
22
2012
Supreme Court Declines To Review “New And Improved” Written Description Requirement Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
17
2012
Supreme Court Reverses In Caraco Appeal Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
16
2014
Revised 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Released by PTO Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
26
2012
Akami/McKesson Decision Re-defines Induced Infringement Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
9
2020
BASF Corp. v SNF Holding Co: Section 102 Dissected Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
14
2021
Amgen v. Sanofi – How Wands Factors make Biotech Claims “Magically” Disappear Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
1
2016
More Good News for Software Patents: Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Opnet Telecom, Inc., 2015-1180, Fed. Cir. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
9
2013
Supreme Court Denies Cert. in Sherley v. Sebelius Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
16
2014
Gone Judge – Judge Randall Rader To Resign Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
4
2019
Cleveland Clinic II – Why Can’t a Diagnostic Conclusion be a Practical Application of a Natural Law? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
4
2021
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration Releases Top Ten Cases of Administrative Patent Enforcement Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
20
2019
Novartis v. West-Ward – Lead Compound Analysis v. Motivation to Combine Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
11
2016
Genetic Technologies Affirms Ariosa/Myriad With Introduction By Sequenom Petition for Cert. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
22
2013
Recent Board Decisions on § 101 Show Generally Consistent Approach (and some inscrutability with respect to business-related processes) 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