We use cookies to enhance your experience of our website and provide us with information on how you use our website. For more information about the way our site uses cookies, please read our Privacy Policy. Click "Accept Cookies" to enable cookies and third-party content or “Decline” to decline the use of cookies.
Accept CookiesDecline
mobile logo
High Contrast Mode
  • Search
  • People
  • Practices
  • Values
    Inclusion and Engagement
    Pro Bono
    Core Values
  • Firm
    About Our Firm
    Careers : Attorneys
    Careers: Business Services
    Contact Us
    Blogs & Podcasts
    Firm News
    Publications
    Events
Skip Nav
Patterson Belknap Logo
Inclusion and Engagement
Pro Bono
Core Values
About Our Firm
Careers
AttorneysBusiness Services
Contact Us
News & Resources
Blogs & PodcastsFirm NewsPublicationsEvents

Find a Person


Search
  • A
    B
    C
    D
    E
    F
    G
    H
    I
    J
    K
    L
    M
  • N
    O
    P
    Q
    R
    S
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X
    Y
    Z
  • View All
  • A
    B
    C
    D
    E
    F
    G
    H
    I
    J
    K
    L
    M
    N
    O
    P
    Q
    R
    S
    T
    U
    V
    W
    X
    Y
    Z
    View All

Find a Practice

Search
  • Corporate & Transactions
  • Exempt Organizations & Private Clients
  • Litigation, Disputes & Investigations
  • All Practices
printable-logo

NY Patent Decisions Blog

Categories / Search
Categories / Search

Search Blog

Search
Filter By Categories:
  • Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)
  • Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)
Posts
Subscribe
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

You Didn’t Quite Capture It – Judge Gardephe Rejects Several Allegations of Patent Infringement

On September 10, 2024, District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part Defendant Adobe, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for failing to plead “facts sufficient to establish infringement.” Plaintiff Douglas G. Richardson is a professional photographer with “several patents” related...
September 25, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Tag You’re It: Chief Judge Swain sua sponte Transfers Pro Se Patent Infringement Complaint to Delaware

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain (S.D.N.Y.) recently transferred an action for patent infringement brought pro se by Rachel Ohana (“Ohana”) against Mars Petcare US, Inc. (“Mars Petcare”) to the United States District Court for the District of...
September 12, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Show Me the Papers!: Judge Aaron Grants Motion to Compel Document Discovery from Third-Party

United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted a motion by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) to compel non-party Microchip Technology Incorporated (“Microchip”) to “produce documents and to testify at a deposition”...
September 10, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Third Time’s the Charm: Judge Hellerstein Denies Summary Judgment on Previously Dismissed Patent Claims Against Google

On August 22, 2024, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment that (1) it has not infringed two asserted patents; and (2) the two patents are invalid for lack of written description. See Weisner v....
September 10, 2024
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Assigning Away Standing: Judge Choudhury Concludes that Party Lacks Standing to Correct Inventorship of Inventions Previously Assigned to Another Party

In an ongoing patent dispute between manufacturers of armored fiber optic cables, Judge Choudhury (E.D.N.Y.) recently resolved competing motions to dismiss on several grounds.  In doing so, she ruled that Defendant Point 2 Point Communications Corporation (“P2P”) lacked Article III...
August 23, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Furman Declines to “Pink Slip” Infringement Lawsuit Against Work Management Tool Company

On June 21, 2024, Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) denied Monday.com Ltd. (“Monday”)’s motion to dismiss a complaint for patent infringement by plaintiff Michael Philip Kaufman.  See Kaufman v. Monday.com Ltd., 23-CV-5864 (June 21, 2024). Kaufman holds three patents (the ’981...
July 10, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Time May Not Be on Your Side: Judge Ho Allows the Addition of New Parties Discovered During Stay

Defendants in patent cases should be wary of the possibility that a plaintiff will attempt to add new defendants after a stay for inter partes review is lifted.  In a pending case involving patents directed to “space partitions,” Judge Ho...
July 1, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Garnett “Rolls” Through and Grants Preliminary Injunction Against Sales of Accused Foam Roller Products

On June 14, 2024, Judge Margaret M. Garnett of the Southern District of New York granted a motion for a preliminary injunction in a declaratory judgment action filed by accused infringer PowX Inc., which barred the sales of PowX’s foam...
June 27, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Look Before You Jump: Judge Ho Rules Hague Convention Applies Where Plaintiff Was Not "Reasonably Diligent" in Finding Defendants' Addresses

On June 17, 2024, United States District Court Judge Dale E. Ho ruled on several motions related to Plaintiff Spin Master, Ltd.’s service of process on Defendants Leqiong, Monkki, Onecemore, Chenghai Lucky Boy Toys Co., Ltd. ("Chenghai"), Yucmed Store, Aomore-US,...
June 26, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

How Much Searching is “Non-Exhaustive”?: Judge Gardephe Invalidates Claims as Indefinite

On April 24, 2024, United States District Court Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) construed claims of three patents asserted by Network-1 Technologies, Inc. against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC.  The court found the asserted claims of two U.S. Patents, Nos....
May 22, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Ho Calls Strike Three on Plaintiff’s Subpoena to Baseball Star Bryce Harper

On April 10, 2024, Judge Dale E. Ho granted a motion to quash a third-party subpoena served on Major League Baseball player Bryce Harper in connection with a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Athalonz, LLC against Under Armour, Inc. in...
April 17, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Rakoff Orders Lab-Made Diamond Maker to Pay Fees for Manufacturing Fake Claims

On February 21, 2024, Judge Rakoff (S.D.N.Y) granted a defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs in Carnegie Institute of Technology v. Fenix Diamonds. The Carnegie Institution for Science and its patent licensee, the now-bankrupt M7D Corp., accused Fenix Diamonds...
March 19, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

One Down But One to Go: Judge McMahon Concludes Asserted Patent is Not Unenforceable Through Infectious Unenforceability

On February 23, 2024, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) entered findings of fact and conclusions of law pertaining to issues relating to Defendant Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”)’s defenses of invalidity and unenforceability of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,237,821 (“the ’821 Patent”) and 10,294,717...
March 5, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge McMahon Rules on Motions in Limine

On January 5, 2024, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) decided Plaintiff GeigTech East Bay LLC (“GeigTech”)’s and Defendant Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”)’s motions in limine. Lutron moved in limine to exclude, among other things, the following: Mention of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s...
February 26, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Not a Party, Not a Problem: Judge Clarke Grants Intervenor’s Motion to Stay Pending Non-Party’s Inter Partes Review of the Asserted Patent

On January 31, 2024, Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke granted an intervenor’s motion to stay pending the conclusion of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office inter partes review of the asserted patent that was filed by a third party.  In...
February 8, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Knitting Together Rulings for Both Parties: Judge Subramanian Issues Claim Construction Order in Nike v. Lululemon Flyknit

On December 28, 2023, District Judge Subramanian (S.D.N.Y.) issued claim construction rulings in Nike, Inc. v. Lululemon USA Inc. on four disputed terms.  The Court resolved two of the disputed terms in favor of Nike, Inc. (“Nike”); adopted a modified...
February 1, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Working Out Damages for Wrongful Enjoinment: Judge Rochon Provides Guidance in Exercise-Equipment Case

In a patent case brought against 163 defendants that was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff, Judge Rochon issued an opinion that offers guidance for defendants that have been wrongfully enjoined via an ex parte temporary restraining order. Plaintiff Jiangsu Huari Webbing...
January 24, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge McMahon Rejects Estoppel Argument Based on Lack of Reasonableness and Diligence in Prior Art Searching

On December 21, 2023, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) denied GeigTech East Bay LLC’s (“GeigTech”) motion to preclude Lutron Electronics Co. (“Lutron”) from raising an affirmative defense of invalidity based on 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(2), i.e., the Post-Grant Review (“PGR)” estoppel provision. Specifically,...
January 8, 2024
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Nothing to See Here: Judge Reznik Finds that Privilege with a Patent Prosecuting Attorney Belongs to the Assignee, Not the Inventor

On November 22, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik (S.D.N.Y.) provided some rare insight into “the applicability and scope of the attorney-client privilege as it relates to patent counsel.”  Op. at 1.  Judge Reznik explained that the attorney-client privilege...
January 3, 2024
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Oh Boy, Can it Core an Apple: Judge Brown Channels the Honeymooners and Finds Plaintiff Entitled to Fees and Costs for Infringement of the Wallet Ninja Design Patent

On December 1, 2023, Judge Gary R. Brown (E.D.N.Y.) awarded Plaintiff Dynamite Marketing, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) fees and costs, declined to enhance damages, granted a permanent injunction against future infringement, and denied each of Defendants’ motions for judgment as a matter...
December 14, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Third Strike You’re Out: Judge Gardephe Orders Plaintiff to Explain Why Complaint Should Not be Dismissed After the CAFC Found the Asserted Claims Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

On November 14, 2023, Judge Paul G. Gardephe issued an order directing plaintiff Riggs Technology Holdings, LLC (“Riggs”) to show cause for why its complaint for patent infringement should not be dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiff Riggs had filed three litigations...
November 21, 2023
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Cogan Sends Patent Dispute between Amazon Vendors Packing to California

On October 30, 2023, Judge Brian M. Cogan (E.D.N.Y) transferred a declaratory judgement patent dispute from the Eastern District of New York to the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406, on the basis of improper venue. See...
November 8, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Gardephe Denies Dispositive Motions in Massage-Device Patent Case

In a recent decision in a patent case between massage-device companies, Judge Gardephe (S.D.N.Y.) adopted two recommendations of the magistrate judge.  The first R&R recommended denial of Defendant Tzumi’s motion for partial summary judgment, in which Tzumi asserted non-infringement arguments,...
November 3, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge McMahon Issues Omnibus Ruling Addressing Numerous Procedural Issues Arising Out of Pre-Trial Motions

On September 20, 2023, Judge McMahon (S.D.N.Y.) issued rulings on the parties’ multiple motions to strike, exclude the opinions and proposed testimony of multiple experts, and for summary judgment in a case brought by Geigtech East Bay LLC (“Geigtech”) against Lutron Electronics...
November 3, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Oetken Rules That Disqualification Motion Will Not Fly

On May 1, 2023, United States District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Nike, Inc. (“Nike”)’s motion to disqualify counsel for defendant, Lululemon USA Inc. (“lululemon”).  In an action concerning patents related to Nike’s Flyknit shoe technology, Judge Oetken...
October 6, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Someone Has to Stand Up: Judge Clarke Permits Developer of Crypto Protocol to Intervene in Action Against the Protocol Itself

On September 25, 2023, Judge Jessica Clarke (S.D.N.Y.) granted third party Compound Lab, Inc.'s ("Compound Labs”) motion to intervene in a patent infringement action filed by True Return Systems LLC (“True Return”) against Compound Protocol (“the Protocol”).  Compound Labs is the...
October 4, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Failla Not “On Board” with Amtrak’s Section 101 Arguments in Train-Traffic-Control Case

In a patent case involving claims directed to train-traffic-control systems, Judge Failla of the Southern District of New York denied Defendant Amtrak’s motion to dismiss, rejecting Amtrak’s arguments that Plaintiff Railware, Inc.’s patent claims were directed to an abstract idea. ...
September 25, 2023
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Gonzalez Holds that Service By E-mail on a Chinese Defendant Does Not Run Afoul of Hague Convention

On July 28, 2023, Judge Gonzalez (E.D.N.Y.) denied Defendant Shenzhen Keenray Innovations Ltd.’s (“Keenray”) motion to vacate the December 18, 2022 Order for Entry of a Preliminary Injunction ("Preliminary Injunction Order”). Keenray argued that the Preliminary Injunction Order should be vacated because,...
September 19, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Oetken Construes “Analog”: Can Anything be Truly Digital?

On September 5, 2023, United States District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) construed several terms raised by Plaintiff Dynamics, Inc. (“Dynamics”) and Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), including “Analog waveform.”  Specifically, the Court construed five terms of U.S. Patent No. 8,827,153...
September 13, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

This Case Can Wait – Judge Rochon Finds Stay Warranted After Institution of IPR

On August 4, 2023, United States District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon (S.D.N.Y.) granted Plaintiff Nanobebe US Inc.’s (“Nanobebe”) motion to stay the case pending the resolution of an instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding seeking to invalidate Mayborn (UK) Ltd.’s (“Mayborn”)...
August 24, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Parker Finds GE’s Privileged Documents Show No Signs of Fraud in Medical Imaging Devices Misappropriation Case

On August 8, 2023, Judge Katharine H. Parker (S.D.N.Y.) denied Spectrum Dynamics Medical Limited’s (“Spectrum”) motion to compel the production of documents that it argued fell under the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege.  See Spectrum Dynamics Med. Ltd. v....
August 23, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Engelmayer Holds that Suit Based on Cancelled Patent Claims Should Be Dismissed Without Prejudice

On June 5, 2023, Judge Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) dismissed  Plaintiffs' infringement claims against Defendants. After the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office cancelled the asserted patent—U.S. Design Patent No. D746,078—Defendants requested an entry of judgment dismissing Plaintiffs’ infringement claim with prejudice, and dismissing Defendants’...
June 26, 2023
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Locke Adds Inequitable Conduct Counterclaim “To the Mix” in Patent and Trademark Case Against Dental Product Mixer

On May 2, 2023, Judge Steven I. Locke (E.D.N.Y) granted Kettenbach GmbH & Co. KG and Kettenbach LP’s (together, “Kettenbach”) motion to bring a defense and counterclaim that a patent Kettenbach is alleged to have infringed is unenforceable due to...
May 16, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Halfway There: Judge Wang Recommends Dismissing Design Patent Claims But Allowing Utility Patent Claims

On March 23, 2023, Magistrate Judge Wang (S.D.N.Y.) recommended granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendants’ T-Mobile, USA, Inc. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Bobcar Media, LLC (“Plaintiff”). The FAC alleged,...
April 5, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

If at First You Don’t Succeed, Amend: Judge Cronan Finds Digital Video Patents Directed to Unpatentable Abstract Ideas, But Grants Leave to Amend

On March 24, 2023, Judge John P. Cronan found the asserted claims of two patents to be directed to abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but sua sponte granted leave to amend the complaint and plead additional facts relevant to eligibility. Plaintiff...
April 4, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Engelmayer Finds Claims for Timekeeping to be an Abstract Idea: “Whether by Quill or by Computer, Humans Have Undertaken Such Timekeeping . . . for Centuries”

On March 7, 2023, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that claims directed to computerized methods and systems for “timekeeping of tasks on a document-by-document, telephone call-by-telephone call, and client service-by-client service basis” are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. §...
March 17, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Schofield Finds Assertion of “Weak” Patent Claims Not Exceptional for Purposes of Awarding Attorney’s Fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285

On January 23, 2023, United States District Judge Lorna G. Schofield (S.D.N.Y.) denied Maropost Marketing Cloud, Inc.’s (“Maropost”) motion to declare its dispute with Zeta Global Corp. (“Zeta”) exceptional for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.  Zeta brought...
March 15, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Reflecting on All Factors, District Judge Ronnie Abrams Grants Pre-Institution Stay in lululemon Mirror Case

On February 24, United States District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants lululemon USA Inc. and Curiouser Products Inc. d/b/a Mirror (collectively “lululemon”)’s motion to stay pending inter partes review.  Judge Abrams ordered the stay even though the IPRs have...
March 13, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Roman Hits “Stop” on State Law Claims in Treadmill Patent Infringement Case

On January 17, 2023, Judge Nelson Romàn (S.D.N.Y) granted a motion by defendants LifeCore Fitness (“LifeCore”) and Assault Fitness (“Assault”) to dismiss state law claims as pre-empted or time-barred in a patent infringement case involving treadmill designs. See Speedfit LLC...
March 7, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Picking an Outfit Is Not Patentable: Judge Aaron Recommends Invention Ineligible Under Section 101

On February 21, 2023, United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron (S.D.N.Y.) recommended that Defendant FindMine, Inc.’s (“FindMine”) motion to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Stylitics, Inc. (“Stylitics”) be granted for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. Stylitics asserted that FindMine infringed...
February 27, 2023
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Scanlon Provides Guidance for Patent Holders Seeking Default Judgment

You are a patent holder seeking default judgment against an infringer.  What requirements must you meet to obtain default judgment, damages, attorneys’ fees, and pre-judgment interest?  Magistrate Judge Scanlon recently articulated those requirements in a patent case involving drinking glasses...
February 14, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Who’s in Control?- Judge Furman Finds Artist Control of Playlist Not Patentable Subject Matter Under Section 101

On January 24, 2023, District Judge Jesse M. Furman (S.D.N.Y.) granted  Defendant Block, Inc.’s (“Block”) motion to dismiss on the ground that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,009,113 (“the ’113 patent”) were directed to an abstract idea not eligible for...
February 7, 2023
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Gonzalez Grants Preliminary Injunction to Accused Infringer For "What Appears to Be a Fraudulent Claim to a Patent"

On December 18, 2022, Judge Gonzalez (E.D.N.Y.) granted-in-part and denied-in-part Plaintiff Sound Around Inc.'s motion for entry of a preliminary injunction against Defendants Shenzhen Keenray Innovations Ltd., Danxia Wu, and Weng Feng Peng (a/k/a Fenson Peng) pursuant to Federal Rule...
January 12, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Lehrburger Finds That Original Complaint Can Provide Requisite Knowledge For Willfulness Allegations in Second Amended Complaint

Three weeks after recommending deferral of claim construction in a patent dispute between competing massage-device companies, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger recommended denying Defendant Tzumi’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Therabody’s claims of willful infringement of eight patents in its second amended complaint. ...
January 5, 2023
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Lehrburger Recommends Deferring Claim Construction Until Full Record is “Graspable”

What does it mean for a handle of a massage device to be “graspable”?  We do not yet know.  In Therabody, Inc. v. Tzumi Electronics LLC, No. 21-CV-7803, 2022 BL 425916 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2022), Magistrate Judge Lehrburger rejected one...
December 15, 2022
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

We Will Just Have to Wait – Judge Liman Grants Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Parallel Motion to Dismiss

On October 4, 2022, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted a motion to stay pending the resolution of a motion to dismiss in a parallel proceeding. In April 2022, Plaintiff Diatek Licensing LLC (“Diatek”) asserted that Estrella Media, Inc....
October 25, 2022
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Product or Person, Not Both: Judge Hellerstein Dismisses Complaint for Alleging That the Accused Instrumentality is the Defendant

On August 25, 2022, Judge Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant SAS Institute’s (“SAS”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Invincible IP LLC’s (“Invincible”) complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At the outset of its analysis,...
September 16, 2022
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Right Place at Right Time Is Not Patentable: Judge Carter Finds Location-Based Reminder Function Ineligible for Patenting Under Section 101

On August 31, 2022, District Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. (S.D.N.Y.) found patent claims directed to a personal organizer with a location-based reminder function on a mobile phone to be directed to an abstract idea ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C....
September 14, 2022

Page 2 of 6

Our Patent Practice

NYPatentDecisionsBlog.com is a source for the latest patent decisions from the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The blog is authored by Patterson Belknap’s Patent Litigation practice group, whose members are highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge. Many have advanced scientific degrees and industry experience in fields such as communications, electrical and electro-optical technology, semiconductor technology, metallurgical engineering, chemistry and biochemistry. The team represents consumer products, electrical and software, medical device, mechanical, and pharmaceutical companies in a broad range of patent litigation matters, including district court cases, PTO and PTAB trial proceedings, patent licensing and contractual disputes concerning patent rights.

Read More

Editor in Chief

  • Contact Lewis V. Popovski.

    Lewis V. Popovski

    212.336.2610

    Email

Blog Contributors

  • Contact Lewis V. Popovski.

    Lewis V. Popovski

    212.336.2610

    Email

  • Contact Alexander A. Ivanovic.

    Alexander A. Ivanovic

    212.336.2293

    Email

  • Contact Tiffany Li.

    Tiffany Li

    212.336.2848

    Email

  • Contact Ryan J. Sheehan.

    Ryan J. Sheehan

    212.336.2123

    Email

  • Contact George S.  Soussou.

    George S. Soussou

    212.336.2208

    Email

  • Contact Matthew B. Weiss.

    Matthew B. Weiss

    212.336.2455

    Email

Posts
Subscribe

Firm Highlights

Blog Post
Can Subchapter V’s Increased Debt Limit Save In-Court Business Reorganizations?
Chapter 11 is intended to enable businesses to reorganize while continuing normal operations under the control of existing management. The primary goal of chapter 11 is for companies to reorganize rather than liquidate to the benefit of owners, employees, suppliers, customers and others relying on the businesses’ ongoing survival. But the process has become expensive. Some would-be chapter 11 debtors opt out of the court process altogether, instead seeking out-of-court options, including consensual debt restructurings and liability management exercises (or “LMEs”). These debtors seek to renegotiate their debts to make shifts within their capital structure without the expense of a bankruptcy filing. When companies do file chapter 11, they often do so with prepackaged or pre-negotiated plans of reorganization, which...
Publication
The Billion-Dollar Interview: How the Wrong Hiring Process Can Create Personal Liability for Founders
The right talent can make or break a startup, and effective founders build recruiting processes to land exceptional people. But a process built to win talent can, if run the wrong way, expose a founder to personal liability to the competitor they are hiring from. A recent lawsuit by Apple shows how. Tang Tan spent 24 years at Apple, rising to vice president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch. After co-founding startup io Products and selling the company to OpenAI, he was tasked with building OpenAI’s hardware team. He turned to the engineers he knew best: Apple’s. Tan’s interviews were hands-on. Candidates explained their contributions and engineering decisions and brought physical components from Apple to illustrate their work at...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Event
Andrew Haddad to Speak on American Bar Association Webinar
On Thursday, November 12, Counsel Andrew Haddad will speak on an American Bar Association webinar titled "United Against Fakes: The Counterfeit Drug Problem." Mr. Haddad will join Laura Manschreck (Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP) and Erin McDermott (Principal, Charles River Associates) to explore the rise of counterfeit life sciences products and its impact on manufacturers and discuss the latest enforcement and litigation trends. To learn more, please click here.
Publication
New York Restricts “Pay or Stay” Agreements Under the Trapped at Work Act
New York employers will soon face new restrictions on agreements requiring employees to repay certain amounts if their employment ends before a specified period of time. New York’s Trapped at Work Act (the “Act”) generally prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees, as a condition of employment, to enter into so-called “pay or stay” agreements, subject to exceptions for certain educational expenses, bonuses, relocation assistance, and other incentive payments. Originally enacted in December 2025 and amended in February 2026, the Act left some uncertainty as to whether its effective date would be December 19, 2026 or February 13, 2027. On October 22, 2026, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) issued guidance confirming that the Act will take effect...
Publication
McDonald's Antitrust Suits Spotlight Risks Of AI Pricing Tools
The Oct. 15 Rossi v. McDonald's and the Oct. 2 Thomas v. McDonald's class action filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois mark the latest in a series of cases targeting companies' use of algorithmic price tools to evaluate and allegedly set prices using consumer and competitor data. Private plaintiffs, regulators and legislators alike have increasingly criticized such practices as creating opportunities for companies to engage in anticompetitive behavior to the detriment of consumers and other market participants who are operating without the benefit of pricing tools. This article examines the various theories under which antitrust challenges can arise when companies use artificial intelligence pricing tools and personalize prices through individual consumers. To continue reading Amy Vegari and...
Firm News
Firm Attorneys Honored for Pro Bono Work by Sanctuary for Families
On Wednesday, October 28, 2026, Partner Lauren Schorr Potter and Associates Folasade Famakinwa, Jillian Horowitz, and Tiffany Li were honored by Sanctuary for Families with the 2026 Above & Beyond Pro Bono Achievement Award for achievements in connection with their pro bono work. Ms. Potter, Ms. Famakinwa, and Ms. Li were recognized for their work successfully representing a survivor of sexual abuse as a victim witness in a high-profile federal criminal trial that received significant public attention. The team guided the client through an intense period of preparation, including numerous meetings and testimony preparation, coordination with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and support on trial days. Sanctuary for Families celebrated “not only the team’s legal advocacy, but also the extraordinary care, commitment,...
Firm News
Firm Lawyers Honored for Pro Bono Work by New York County Lawyers Association
On Tuesday, October 20, 2026, the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA) recognized three firm attorneys for achievements in connection with their pro bono work. Shelley Attadgie was recognized for her work related to the State Central Registry (SCR) Project. Ms. Attadgie represented a client in connection with a petition to amend and seal a report entered against them in the SCR by the Administration for Children's Services. Ms. Attadgie prepared the client for his hearing testimony before an Administrative Law Judge, drafted and collected supporting evidence, cross-examined the Agency’s witness, and assisted the client with his direct testimony. Following the two-day hearing, the finding of maltreatment was amended to unfounded and sealed, removing a significant barrier that had impacted the client...
Event
Thomas Kurland to Speak on Social Media Mass Torts at ACI’s 2026 Drug & Medical Device Litigation Conference
On Wednesday, December 2, Partner Thomas Kurland will speak on a panel titled "The New Mental Health Mass Tort: Product Design, Warnings, and Causation Lessons from the Social Media Litigation" at the American Conference Institute's Drug & Medical Device Litigation conference.  Mr. Kurland will join Manuel F. Cachán (Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP), TaCara Harris (Partner, King & Spalding), and Jobina Jones-McDonnell (VP and Assistant General Counsel, Litigation and Risk, Keenova) to discuss the growing field of social media mass tort litigation and how it relates to—and may end up impacting—more mature mass torts involving pharmaceuticals and medical devices. To learn more, please click here.
Blog Post
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Crafts Test Concerning Post-Confirmation “Related-To” Jurisdiction
The filing of a bankruptcy case creates an estate consisting of the debtor’s legal and equitable property. The estate will continue until the debtor’s confirmed plan of reorganization or liquidation goes effective. It will then terminate, and the property will either revest in the reorganized debtor or be transferred to another entity such as a post-confirmation liquidation trust. Now and then, bankruptcy judges face this issue: after plan confirmation, when can a liquidation trustee assert state law claims in a lawsuit filed in the bankruptcy court? In terms of a bankruptcy court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the question can be articulated this way: when can a bankruptcy court have post-confirmation related-to jurisdiction over such claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1334?[i] A bankruptcy judge...
Blog Post
Can Subchapter V’s Increased Debt Limit Save In-Court Business Reorganizations?
Chapter 11 is intended to enable businesses to reorganize while continuing normal operations under the control of existing management. The primary goal of chapter 11 is for companies to reorganize rather than liquidate to the benefit of owners, employees, suppliers, customers and others relying on the businesses’ ongoing survival. But the process has become expensive. Some would-be chapter 11 debtors opt out of the court process altogether, instead seeking out-of-court options, including consensual debt restructurings and liability management exercises (or “LMEs”). These debtors seek to renegotiate their debts to make shifts within their capital structure without the expense of a bankruptcy filing. When companies do file chapter 11, they often do so with prepackaged or pre-negotiated plans of reorganization, which...
Publication
The Billion-Dollar Interview: How the Wrong Hiring Process Can Create Personal Liability for Founders
The right talent can make or break a startup, and effective founders build recruiting processes to land exceptional people. But a process built to win talent can, if run the wrong way, expose a founder to personal liability to the competitor they are hiring from. A recent lawsuit by Apple shows how. Tang Tan spent 24 years at Apple, rising to vice president of product design for the iPhone and Apple Watch. After co-founding startup io Products and selling the company to OpenAI, he was tasked with building OpenAI’s hardware team. He turned to the engineers he knew best: Apple’s. Tan’s interviews were hands-on. Candidates explained their contributions and engineering decisions and brought physical components from Apple to illustrate their work at...
Blog Post
You Win Some and Lose Some: Judge Liman Decides Competing Motions to Compel
On September 4, 2026, District Judge Lewis J. Liman (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff Lashify, Inc.’s (“Lashify”) motion to compel discovery and denied Defendants Qingdao Network Technology Co., Ltd., d/b/a UCoolMe and Vivicute Limited’s (“UCoolMe”) motion to compel. Lashify, Inc. v. Qingdao Network Tech. Co., Ltd., No. 25-cv-4183 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 4, 2026). Lashify’s Motion to Compel Lashify moved to compel UCoolMe to provide responses to discovery requests relating to: (i) product samples and raw materials; (ii) manufacturing; (iii) employees and supply chain; (iv) marketing; and (v) finances. Id. at *2. The Court found that each of those topics were relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a) and that UCoolMe did not sufficiently respond to discovery requests related to...
Event
Andrew Haddad to Speak on American Bar Association Webinar
On Thursday, November 12, Counsel Andrew Haddad will speak on an American Bar Association webinar titled "United Against Fakes: The Counterfeit Drug Problem." Mr. Haddad will join Laura Manschreck (Partner, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP) and Erin McDermott (Principal, Charles River Associates) to explore the rise of counterfeit life sciences products and its impact on manufacturers and discuss the latest enforcement and litigation trends. To learn more, please click here.
Publication
New York Restricts “Pay or Stay” Agreements Under the Trapped at Work Act
New York employers will soon face new restrictions on agreements requiring employees to repay certain amounts if their employment ends before a specified period of time. New York’s Trapped at Work Act (the “Act”) generally prohibits employers from requiring employees or prospective employees, as a condition of employment, to enter into so-called “pay or stay” agreements, subject to exceptions for certain educational expenses, bonuses, relocation assistance, and other incentive payments. Originally enacted in December 2025 and amended in February 2026, the Act left some uncertainty as to whether its effective date would be December 19, 2026 or February 13, 2027. On October 22, 2026, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) issued guidance confirming that the Act will take effect...
Publication
McDonald's Antitrust Suits Spotlight Risks Of AI Pricing Tools
The Oct. 15 Rossi v. McDonald's and the Oct. 2 Thomas v. McDonald's class action filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois mark the latest in a series of cases targeting companies' use of algorithmic price tools to evaluate and allegedly set prices using consumer and competitor data. Private plaintiffs, regulators and legislators alike have increasingly criticized such practices as creating opportunities for companies to engage in anticompetitive behavior to the detriment of consumers and other market participants who are operating without the benefit of pricing tools. This article examines the various theories under which antitrust challenges can arise when companies use artificial intelligence pricing tools and personalize prices through individual consumers. To continue reading Amy Vegari and...
Litigation, Disputes & Investigationsicon right
Exempt Organizations & Private Clientsicon right
Corporate & Transactionsicon right
  • Contact Us
  • Subscribe
  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy

1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 | Tel: 212.336.2000
© 2026 Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney Advertising. Website Credits