Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 319: Spotlight on Torts (Part 3 – Strict and Vicarious Liability)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 513: Grappling with AI as a Law Student and Lawyer (1L Summer Series)
Podcast - Part II: The Do’s and Don’ts of Demonstratives
Wire Fraud Litigants Beware: Fourth Circuit Ruling Protects the Banks — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Balch’s Consumer Finance Compass: How Standing Can Make or Break Certification for Class Action Lawsuits in Debt Collection
Podcast - Persistence and Determination
Podcast - Part I - The Do’s and Don’ts of Demonstratives
Podcast - Walking Tall
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 317: Spotlight on Torts (Part 2 – Intentional Torts)
Key Discovery Points: A Judicial Approach to Handling AI-Generated Evidence
Master the First Moves in Litigation for Courtroom Advantage – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Podcast - The Seeds of Corruption
Key Discovery Points: Don’t Get Caught with Your Hand in the Production Cookie Jar
Key Discovery Points: BYOD Case Law Covering Subpoenas and Employee Handbooks
Feeling Disillusioned with AI? You’re Not Alone
Current Regulatory, Legislative, and Litigation Developments on ADA Website Accessibility for Consumer Finance Digital Platforms — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Key Discovery Points: Petty Finger Pointing Over Search Terms Results in Wasted Time
The Trend of Threatening Physicians for Personal Gain
Podcast - Seek Out Feedback
The Three C’s for Addressing Prior Inconsistent Statements
On June 9, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a Final Written Decision (“FWD”) in Merck’s IPR2024-00240 against The Johns Hopkins University’s (“JHU”) U.S. Patent No. 11,591,393 (“the ’393 patent”),...more
The Federal Circuit recently resolved a split among the district courts whether patent infringement defendants who bring inter partes review (IPR) challenges are estopped from raising new prior art challenges in a co-pending...more
In a significant development for patent litigants, the Federal Circuit in Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, affirmed an important limitation on the scope of IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). Specifically, the court held...more
The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on...more
In what is certain to become a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit has resolved a long-standing question that divided patent litigators and judges alike: does IPR estoppel apply to physical systems (“system art”) described...more
Recently, Cloudflare Inc. succeeded in convincing the PTAB to institute in IPR2021-00969 against a Sable Network, Inc.’s patent directed toward data flow. While the institution itself is not out of the ordinary—the...more
Though it can be difficult to avoid post-grant challenges, patents can be drafted to increase the chances of survival. In today’s environment, patents subject to post-grant proceedings face a very high likelihood of being...more
There is no doubt that “the potential for estoppel is one of the important considerations for defendants in deciding whether or not to file an [inter partes review (“IPR”)] petition.” Shaw Indus. Grp., Inc. v. Automated Creel...more