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
Nov
9
2017
Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington – Where Did Ali Go Off the Rails? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
15
2011
Myriad Petition For Rehearing Denied Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jan
13
2014
Supreme Court Will Review Limelight and Nautilus Re: Patent Infringement Litigation Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
10
2014
CLS v. Alice Bank And The Cult Of The “Abstract Idea” Re: Patent Litigation Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
20
2020
CardioNet v. Infobionics: The Requirement for Improvements in Patent Eligibility 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.
Dec
29
2014
The Settlement Effect of PTAB Proceedings and Recent Patent Office Trial Statistics Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
9
2021
Neapco’s Brief in Opposition to AA’s Petition for Cert. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
20
2019
Novartis v. West-Ward – Lead Compound Analysis v. Motivation to Combine Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
12
2015
Financial Product Search System Found Patent Ineligible Under Section 101 by Delaware Court Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
3
2012
Supreme Court Grants Myriad’s Petition for Cert. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Nov
4
2022
Five-Year Prison Sentence for Selling $1.27 Million USD of Counterfeit Armani Watches in Shanghai Trademark Case Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
20
2013
Exhibits for SAP v. Versata Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
5
2021
China’s Supreme People’s Court Affirms Right to Set Royalty Rates Worldwide in OPPO/Sharp Standard Essential Patent Case Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
27
2017
Supreme Court Interprets Patent Venue Statute in Unanimous Opinion Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
29
2016
Justice Breyer to Diagnostic Test Patentees – “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here.” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
17
2020
China and EU Sign Agreement to Protect Each Others’ Geographic Indications Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
May
15
2013
Supreme Court Decides Bowman v. Monsanto for Monsanto Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
12
2015
Ariosa v. Sequenom – Novel Genetic Analysis Fails The Mayo Test Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
17
2013
Re: Patent claims - Can AMP v. Myriad Revive Diagnostic Method Claims? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
19
2017
Millennium Pharm. v. Sandoz, Inc. – Revenge of the Chemical Judges 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.
Dec
7
2020
Prison for over 200 fraudulent Chinese patent applications yielding 900,000 RMB in government awards 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.
Jan
18
2021
Illumina v. Ariosa – Ariosa Petitions for Cert. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
26
2020
Shanghai People’s Procuratorate Launches Criminal Prosecution of Lego Block Infringers 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.
 

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