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 3,516

Breaking News: Physical Presence Requirement Bill Introduced in Congress
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 15 2016

Yesterday, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced the No Regulation Without Representation Act of 2016 (H.R. 5893) in the US House of


Expert “Hot Tubbing” in the Tax Court
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 15 2016

The use of expert witnesses in litigation can be tricky. Taxpayers want to avoid the perception that their expert is a “hired gun” who is merely


Tax Court Order Indicates That E-Discovery and Predictive Coding Are Here to Stay
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 18 2016

On July 13, 2016, Judge Buch of the US Tax Court denied an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) motion to compel the production of electronically stored


Antitrust M&A Snapshot - July 2016
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • European Union, USA
  • July 19 2016

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and US Department of Justice (DOJ) have been actively challenging mergers and acquisitions in the first half of


Tax Court Issues Five Discovery Orders Addressing Admissibility of Expert Reports
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 20 2016

On July 13, 14, and 15, 2016, Judge Laro of the US Tax Court (Tax Court) ruled on five taxpayer-filed motions in limine to exclude expert reports in


Protecting Confidential Taxpayer Information in Tax Court
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • July 21 2016

Taxpayers value confidentiality, particularly if there is a dispute with the IRS that involves highly-sensitive trade secrets or other confidential


Tax Court (Again) Rejects IRS Use of Secret Subpoenas
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • Germany, USA
  • July 11 2016

On July 8, 2016, Judge Mark V. Holmes of the US Tax Court issued an order in Ernest S. Ryder & Associates, Inc., APLC, et al., v. Commissioner


Federal Circuit Distinguishes “Motivation to Combine” from “Expectation of Success” for Obviousness Purposes
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • June 28 2016

Addressing issues of obviousness and the proper scope of inter partes review (IPR) reply briefs, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


District court action dismissed without prejudice does not bar filing of IPR petition
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2015

Addressing whether a district court action dismissed without prejudice bars a filing of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition under 35 U.S.C


Dismissal without prejudice does not trigger IPR statutory bar
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing the standard for the 35 U.S.C. 315(a)(1) and (b) statutory bars to filing an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, the Patent Trial and