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 ascending
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
23
2022
China Releases Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Jurisdiction of Intellectual Property Cases of First Instance Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Mar
25
2019
Ex parte Hazokaki – Big Data Correlations in Abstract Idea “Clothing” Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
28
2022
Even the Chinese Government isn’t Safe from Counterfeiters: China Cracks Down on Counterfeit Mail Trucks Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
2
2021
China’s National Copyright Administration Releases Top Ten Criminal Infringement and Piracy Cases of 2020 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
3
2012
Supreme Court Grants Myriad’s Petition for Cert. Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
4
2018
Ex Parte Galloway – Berkheimer Meet s. 103 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
28
2018
Finjan, Inc. v ESET, LLC: Can Billing Records Evidence Intent Element of Inequitable Conduct? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
28
2021
Chemours Co. v. Daikin Industries – Back to Some IP Basics Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jul
7
2014
Abbvie V. Janssen Biotech –Written Description Requirement Road Map Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Aug
20
2018
Ex Parte Schwartz – A Pyrric Reversal of a 101 Rejection Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Apr
21
2013
Petitioner Allowed to Submit Supplemental Information After Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Trial and Appeal Board Trial Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Sep
17
2020
China and EU Sign Agreement to Protect Each Others’ Geographic Indications Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Mar
12
2024
China’s Supreme People’s Court Releases Summary of IP Judgements for 2023 Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
10
2015
PTAB Denies 2Wire IPR Petitions Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Feb
3
2023
Decathlon Wins Almost 3 Million RMB in Chinese Trade Dress Dispute for Store Design Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Jun
19
2013
Versata: The Double Secret “Technical Effect” Standard Strikes Again Re: Patent Litigation 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.
Nov
4
2021
China’s Supreme People’s Court Rules Unintentional Short Payment of Annuity Fee Causes Termination of Patent Rights 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.
Aug
3
2017
Honeywell International, Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holdings – Revenge of the Chemist Judges II 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.
Jan
23
2020
HTC Wins 6.5 Million RMB and Injunction against Chinese Patent Infringers Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Dec
29
2021
Biogen v. Mylan – Therapeutic v. Clinical Efficacy – What is Required by the Written Description Requirement? Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
Oct
18
2017
In re Smith, International, Inc. – What’s a “Body” to Do? 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