We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 957

Court relies on proportionality to deny inspection of defendant’s computers, cell phones and email accounts
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • June 7 2013

Earlier this year, we wrote about a decision in which a federal district court rejected a proportionality argument and ordered the production of a


Employers can learn from recent cases involving the Federal Trade Commission
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • May 9 2014

Two recent decisions - one from the federal district court in New Jersey and one from a federal Administrative Law Judge - potentially will have


Is gas a mineral?
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 16 2013

A case pending before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania considers a question that seemingly has been settled in that state for 130 years: Is gas a


SCOTUS defines "supervisor" for Title VII cases as one who can take tangible employment actions
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • June 25 2013

In Vance v. Ball State University, No. 11-556 (June 24, 2013), the United States Supreme Court held that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes


A certified question about "wrongful attempted foreclosure" likely to be left unanswered for now
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • June 24 2013

On May 2, we reported here on a trifecta of noteworthy lending cases that were accepted for review by the Ohio Supreme Court. One of the three cases


The Redskins trademark decision great media interest, overhyped reaction
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • June 20 2014

The June 18, 2014, decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) cancelling six federal trademark


Tech companies can’t escape antitrust liability for agreeing not to solicit competitors’ employees
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • April 11 2014

Sometimes, the worlds of antitrust law and employment law intersect. For example, as most businesses know, it is generally permissible under federal


Life sciences patent subject matter eligibility two steps forward, one step back
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 27 2015

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its revised Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 on Dec


The Supreme Court unanimously says changes to retiree medical coverage a matter of contract analysisbut with a mild twist
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • January 28 2015

In what perhaps can be best described as a win for traditional contract analysis, the United States Supreme Court (the "Court") issued an opinion on


ERISA damagestwo bites off the same apple are impermissible
  • Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP
  • USA
  • March 19 2015

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an en banc decision in Rochow v. Life Insurance Company of North America on March 5