Inertia
Sir Isaac Newton’s first law of motion holds that a body at rest will start moving only if a big enough outside force acts on it.
Newton’s law governs in the legal realm as well — except we lawyers call it stare decisis.
The doctrine last week doomed an effort to push the
Going flat
In the last post, I reviewed the plusses and minuses of the hourly fee, which I said still strides the world of high-stakes litigation like a Colossus.
But a distinctive trait of the hourly fee — its extreme concentration of risk on the client — limits its appeal and threatens its longevity.
Still dominant
The billable hour bestrides the world of high-stakes litigation like a Colossus. Whatever its prospects,¹ today it continues to set the baseline for expectations about attorneys’ fees.
Big firms charge by the hour, class action lawyers detail “lodestars” in fee applications, flat fees aim to smooth out hypothetical hourly charges, and
Welcome to The Contingency — a new law blog that will offer insights on sharing risk in high-stakes business disputes.
Reasons to read
The Contingency will tell you things you need to know if you:
Unpatentable subject matter
A pair of Federal Circuit opinions last week rejected patents involving patent-ineligible subject matter.
What does that include, you ask?
As Blawgletter noted last year in "You Still Can't Patent Ideas":
Section 101 of the Patent Act allows patents on "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
Another Term, another chance to gut class actions
If you've watched the Supreme Court over the last several years, you may have marveled at how earnestly some of the justices have worked to render Rule 23 a dead letter. Behold:
Snares
Patent law features so many traps that even the wary fall in one now and then. It happened again last week. This time the ruling concerned standing, an issue that goes to the power of a court to decide a case.
A narrow license
The case involved a patent on "Gelatinous Elastomer Compositions and
As the June 16th launch date for The Contingency gets ever closer, Blawgletter post from five years ago offers a preview of the sort of subjects The Contingency will deal with on a more regular basis.
* * * *
In a couple of weeks, Blawgletter will end its eight-year run as my principal law blog.
On Tuesday, June 16, I will launch The Contingency: Insights on Sharing the Risks and Rewards of High-Stakes Business Disputes. You'll get more info on The Contingency, including how to subscribe.
Turning down the lights on Blawgletter
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken away a potentially devastating defense from companies that induce others to infringe patents.
The Court ruled in Commil USA, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, slip op. at 10 (U.S. May 26, 2015), that "a defendant's belief regarding patent validity" does not provide "a defense to a