The typical reinsurance contract arbitration involves a tri-partite panel of arbitrators, with each party appointing an arbitrator and a separate process governing appointment of the third arbitrator (known as “the umpire”),” according to a white paper published by Sidley Austin LLP and available on Lexology.com.

Most arbitrations run smoothly, the paper says, but “arbitrators should be ready for the exceptional case, which can be occasioned by another arbitrator or counsel. The remedy for rogue behavior may rest within the panel, or it may require judicial intervention. Judicial relief can be hard to come by, given the procedural and substantive hurdles to be cleared; but the truly egregious case has a way of catching a court’s attention.”

The article examines some examples of panel breakdown and how they have been addressed.

Read the white paper.

The law you choose to govern your contract may not be the law that governs the applicable statute of limitations for claims arising under or related to that contract, writes Glenn West in Weil, Gotshal & Manges’ blog, Global Private Equity Watch.

“Standard choice of law clauses do not in fact choose all of the law of the chosen state; many unknowingly only choose some of that law and that part of the chosen law may only apply to claims in contract but not in tort,” he writes.

The bottom line, West says, is that “unless your choice of law clause specifically states that the statutes of limitations applicable to claims arising under or related to the contract are also governed by the contractually chosen law, the statutes of limitations applicable to the claims governed by the chosen law will be the applicable statutes of limitations of the forum state where the claim is made.”

Read the article.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed prohibiting application of pre-dispute arbitration agreements to class litigation involving certain consumer financial products, according to a report published by Carlton Fields on its website.

“Citing concerns that such agreements ‘effectively prohibit’ class litigation and prevent consumers from obtaining remedies for harm caused by providers of consumer financial products or services, the proposal would apply to most products subject to Bureau oversight,” the report says.

“The Bureau’s proposal would prohibit inclusion of arbitration clauses that block class action claims in contracts with consumers for credit cards, checking and deposit accounts, prepaid cards, money transfer services, certain auto loans, auto title loans, small dollar or payday loans, private student loans, and installment loans.”

Read the report.

Samsung has asked a U.S. appeals court to overturn a jury’s $120 million verdict related to Samsung’s alleged infringement of some of Apple’s patents found on iPhones, reports AppleInsider.

“Apple had originally identified eight primary patents it said Samsung had infringed across at least 17 products, but U.S. courts determined that the country’s judicial system didn’t have the resources to consider the volumes of evidence involved in such a massive patent infringement case, and subsequently narrowed Apple’s trial down to a token hearing,” AppleInsider reports.

“While the jury eventually found Samsung had willfully infringed Apple’s patents, it returned nonsensical damage royalties that awarded Apple $52 million related to Samsung’s Galaxy S3 infringement, but zero for the company’s earlier Galaxy SII, a decision that was so inept that presiding Judge Lucy Koh demanded that the jury either determine the product to be non-infringing or supply a reasonable royalty,” the report continues.

Read the article.

ZAPPROVED has released the results of an online survey of 92 in-house legal staff about their methods of data processing — manual, in-house software or outsource to service provider. The survey then asked them to rate their satisfaction with their process based on three dimensions: cost, time and ease.

The survey respondents consisted of legal professionals, including attorneys, litigation support managers, paralegals and non-legal professionals such as IT and records managers, from in-house legal teams at organizations.

Download this resource to learn what:

• Process is still used the most
• Are the most common reasons for frustration
• In-house teams are most satisfied by
• Kind of resources in-house teams are using

Download the report.

iCONECT has collected all the relevant eDiscovery surveys and reports from the past year and made it available as a complimentary downloadable infographic.

The infographic covers such topics as what federal judges think about attorneys’ eDiscovery competency, the percentage of corporations spending at least $1M on eDiscovery, and how well was the “cloud” received.

iCONECT Development, LLC develops legal review software and services for legal teams to use to complete complex review projects.

Download the infographic.

Joe Jamail, the Texas billionaire who became the richest practicing attorney in the U.S. after winning jury verdicts in civil lawsuits that included a $10.5 billion award for Pennzoil Co. in its landmark case against Texaco Inc. during the 1980s, has died, reports Claims Journal. He was 90.

He died in Houston from complications with pneumonia, the Austin American- Statesman newspaper reported, citing university officials it didn’t name.

“His representation of Pennzoil in a case against Texaco over the purchase of Getty Oil Co. led to a record jury verdict of $10.5 billion and helped make him one of the U.S.’s most sought-after lawyers during his five decades in practice,” according to the Claims Journal

Read the article.

A recent case from the Massachusetts Superior Court presents a stark reminder that whether conduct is viewed as a “mere breach” or part of a deceptive or unfair course of conduct can be in the eye of the beholder, writes Shep Davidson in The In-House Advisor blog, published by Burns & Levinson LLP.

“In American Translation Partners, Inc. v. Lahey Clinic Hospital, Inc., ATP entered into a three-year contract with Lahey to provide interpreters to assist Lahey’s medical professionals in their interactions with non-English speaking patients,” he writes. The contract stated that Lahey would not hire interpreters who had worked for ATP within the past 24 months. ATP later sued, claiming Lahey had breached that rule.

The Superior Court wrote:

“Did Lahey intentionally breach the contract and did it do so to either punish ATP or to gain a financial benefit? Persuasive evidence will have to be offered that Lahey knew that it was likely breaching the Services Agreement but decided to do so anyway either as a lever in its ongoing contract negotiations with ATP or to simply reap unfair benefits. On this record, summary judgment in favor of Lahey must be denied.”

Read the article.

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will hold a complimentary webinar, “The Newly Amended Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Making Sense of the Changes,” presented by Fitch Even partner Joseph F. Marinelli. The webinar will be Thursday, Jan. 21, at 9 am PST / 10 am MST / 11 am CST / 12 noon EST.

On Dec. 1, 2015, significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure went into effect. These changes are intended to make civil litigation more efficient by changing early case management procedures and discovery planning, clarifying the scope of discovery, and revamping the rules regarding the preservation of electronically stored information.

In this webinar, participants will take a closer look at the December rule changes, discussing what you need to know and the practical impact the rules may have on your practice, covering the following topics and more:
•Reorganization of Rule 26(b)(1) to bring proportionality factors to the forefront of scope considerations and elimination
•Change to Rule 26(d) that now permits a party to issue document requests in advance of parties’ Rule 26(f) discovery conference
•Revision of Rule 34 to require more specific objections and responses to document requests
•Revamp of Rule 37(e) to better address ESI preservation and loss
•Elimination of Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms leading to a potential change in pleading requirements in patent infringement suits

The speaker will be Fitch Even partner Joseph F. Marinelli, an IP litigator with more than 15 years of hands-on courtroom experience and a diverse intellectual property law practice covering all aspects of IP creation, management, enforcement, and licensing. Marinelli has extensive experience litigating in popular patent venues including the Northern District of California, the Western District of Wisconsin, and the Eastern District of Texas, as well as representing clients in post-grant procedures before the USPTO.

CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and is pending in Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but please note registration is required.

Following the live event, a recording of the webinar will be available to view for one year at fitcheven.com.

Register for the webinar.

Celgene Corporation has announced the settlement of litigation with Natco Pharma Ltd. of India, Natco’s U.S. partner, Arrow International Limited, and Arrow’s parent company, Watson Laboratories, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan plc) relating to patents for REVLIMID (lenalidomide), reports StreetInsider.com.

“As part of the settlement, the parties will file Consent Judgments with the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that enjoin Natco from marketing generic lenalidomide before the expiration of the patents-in-suit, except as provided for in the settlement,” the story reports.

“Celgene has agreed to provide Natco with a license to Celgene’s patents required to manufacture and sell an unlimited quantity of generic lenalidomide in the United States beginning on Jan. 31, 2026.”

Read the article.

A U.S. appeals court decision Tuesday may reflect favorably on the Washington Redskins football team’s chances to restore federal trademark protections, reports CBSDC.

“Freedom of speech, an argument made in federal court by the Redskins in July, was front and center for a ruling made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., writes Chris Lingebach.

The court rejected a provision of federal law that would bar registration of disparaging trademarks on the grounds that doing so violates the First Amendment.

Read the article.

The third program in Norton Rose Fulbright‘s global litigation school web seminar series discusses unconventional oil and gas development in the United States and the dramatic rise in claims associated with that activity.

“These claims have ranged from environmental claims alleging that hydraulic fracturing, a process used in unconventional oil and gas development, is causing contamination to underground fresh water aquifers to claims for nuisance due to the increased noise and dust associated with the drilling,” the firm says on its site. “It has also led to an increase in the number of heavy truck accidents and lawsuits involving crude by rail and several high profile derailments.”

Watch the video.

Identity theft protection firm LifeLock will pay the Federal Trade Commission $100 million to settle charges that it failed to comply with a 2010 federal court order, the FTC said on Thursday.

Fortune reports the FTC claimed that LifeLock violated a judge’s order requiring that it properly safeguard sensitive personal data like Social Security, credit card, and bank account numbers. Additionally, the regulators alleged that LifeLock lied to consumers that it kept consumer data secure in a similar way to how financial institutions lock up data, the magazine reports.

Read the article.

Power Integrations has announced the latest result in one of its ongoing patent cases against Fairchild Semiconductor. After a trial in federal district court in San Francisco, a jury awarded Power Integrations $139.8 million in damages stemming from Fairchild’s infringement of two Power Integrations patents.

The infringement finding occurred in March 2014 and remains intact; the just-concluded trial was solely to retry damages after an earlier award of $105 million was set aside by the court in view of an intervening change in the law. Power Integrations will also be seeking a permanent injunction against the more than 140 Fairchild parts implicated in this case.

Read the article.

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed a California appellate court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration provision in a contract, concluding that the court’s decision is incompatible with the Federal Arbitration Act and prior Supreme Court precedent, reports John G. Papianou of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP.

DirecTV, Inc. v. Imburgia involved two DirecTV customers who sued the company in California state court, claiming early termination fees in their service agreements violated California law, Papianou wrote in an article published by Lexology.com. DirecTV cited a provision in the service agreement that called for binding individual arbitration of all disputes between DirecTV and its customers. The trial court denied the request and DirecTV appealed.

He wrote that the message is clear: arbitration agreements that waive class actions or class arbitration are enforceable. And state-court judges must enforce them.

Read the article.

The insurance relationship is contractual, but when policyholders claim insurers failed to honor their obligations, they typically invoke the tort of “bad faith,” writes Robert D. Helfand of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt.

“When courts try to explain this anomaly, they cite features of insurance making it uniquely important that parties respect each other’s interests. Courts often say these features make the duty of good faith ‘reciprocal,’ ” he explains.

He discusses some cases that provide another reason for asserting that the insured’s bad faith injured the insurer in ways that were foreseeable when the contract was made. Even if the argument falls short, it might still create a basis for reducing the insurer’s exposure.

Read the article.

Legal operations leaders are driving an unprecedented level of focus on discovery processes, data security, and the efficiency of outside litigation teams.

Ari Kaplan Advisors presents the benchmark 2015 Corporate Legal Operations Survey (sponsored by Recommind), providing both quantitative and qualitative insight into:

• cloud readiness
• eDiscovery key performance metrics
• investigations activity
• data security and consolidation strategies
• critical process pain points

Learn what key corporate legal operations leaders are doing (and not yet doing) to optimize visibility, security, and efficiency.

Download the white paper.

The effort to measure and manage legal risk pays dividends in the reduction of real losses from legal issues. It also pays dividends through improved collaboration between the legal team, operations, and senior management, writes Mark Little, compliance and risk management technology executive at Berkman Solutions.

In an article published on Medium.com, he presents the proper answer for a member of a corporate legal department who faces the requirement: describe how you will review all outstanding issues, set priorities that almost never change, improve interdepartmental trust, and make customers happy within an acceptable timeframe.

The answer, he writes, involves implementing a qualitative risk model to measure and manage legal risk.

Read the article.

Scores of big brands – from AT&T and Yahoo! to Netflix, GoPro and Macy’s – are being sued because their HTTPS websites allegedly infringe an encryption patent, reports The Register in an article written by Shaun Nichols.

Longview, Texas-based CryptoPeak Solutions bases its legal action on US Patent 6,202,150, which describes “auto-escrowable and auto-certifiable cryptosystems.”

CryptoPeak is suing owners of HTTPS websites that use elliptic curve cryptography, a common method for sites to encrypt their traffic.

“Starting in July, CryptoPeak began pursuing companies through the courts in the eastern district of Texas,” the article reports. “Just in the past week or so, the patent-holding biz filed infringement claims against AT&T, Priceline, Pinterest, Hyatt Hotels, Best Western, and Experia.”

Read the article.

If you thought the debate over net neutrality was over and done with, think again, warns Jeremy Quittner in an article on Inc. magazine’s website.

He explains that net neutrality is the term used to describe the unrestricted flow of content over the Internet. Some startups, legal experts and entrepreneurs advocate open content flow, but most broadband providers favor restricting access, requiring companies pay a fee for faster connection speeds.

“This could add to the expenses of typically cash-strapped startups and, as a result, throttle innovation,” the writer warns.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit will hear the case on Friday, with a ruling expected in the spring of 2016.

“Depending on the outcome, the FCC could call for the decision to be reviewed en banc, by the entire 9-person panel of judges. And that ruling could potentially wind up in front of the Supreme Court next year.” according to the Inc. story.

Read the article.