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.)

Judge Sullivan Holds “Substantially” the Same is Close Enough for Collateral Estoppel

On September 30, 2016, District Judge Richard J. Sullivan (S.D.N.Y.) granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding one of the two asserted patents invalid under principles of collateral estoppel. Plaintiff Joao Control & Monitoring Systems ("Plaintiff") had asserted two patents, U.S. Patent Nos....
October 20, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Hellerstein Holds That “Arranged On” Means “Connected In Some Fashion”

On September 30, 2016, District Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendant Nautilus, Inc.’s (“Nautilus”) motion for summary judgment of non-infringement holding that “disposed on said elongated member” does not necessarily mean directly on that member. Plaintiff Biosig Instruments, Inc. (“Biosig”) sued Nautilus for...
October 7, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Oetken Holds that Amendments Made During Ex Parte Reexamination Are not Effective Until Grant of Reissue Patent

On September 26, 2016, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendant Jay Franco & Sons’ (“Franco”) motion to dismiss, granted plaintiff Infinity Headwear & Apparel’s (“Infinity”) motion for leave to amend to assert additional claims, and laid out the Court’s construction of...
October 7, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Woods Holds That Assignment of a Patent is Not an Assignment of an “Interest” Under a License to the Patent

On September 28, 2016, District Judge Gregory Woods (S.D.N.Y.) denied defendant YKK Corp.’s (“YKK”) motion to dismiss the suit, in which plaintiffs Au New Haven, LLC (“Au New Haven”) and Trelleborg Coated Systems US, Inc. (“Trelleborg”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege infringement of U.S....
October 3, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Oetken Holds That Forum-Selection Clause in License Agreement Does Not Trump First-to-File Rule Altogether

On September 16, 2016, District Judge J. Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) denied plaintiff Comcast Corp.’s (“Comcast”) motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendant Rovi Corp. (“Rovi”) from continuing to litigate its patent infringement actions against Comcast in the Eastern District of...
September 21, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

No Way Out for Door Patent

On September 12, 2016, District Judge John G. Koeltl (S.D.N.Y.) granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state claim of patent infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(6).  Claims other than patent infringement remain in the case. Plaintiffs Gym...
September 16, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Abrams Dismisses Case Based on Arguments Made to the PTO During Prosecution

On August 9, 2016, District Judge Ronnie Abrams (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendant Richloom Fabrics Group, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Anchor Sales & Marketing, Inc.’s allegation of patent infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents. Richloom Fabrics’ motion to dismiss, or alternatively...
August 18, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Forrest Provides Litigants Guidance on Applying Alice

On August 3, 2016, S.D.N.Y. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest denied Defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) motion to dismiss Iron Gate Security, Inc.’s (“Iron Gate”) patent infringement claim. Iron Gate alleged that Lowe’s infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,288,641 and 7,203,693 (the “‘693 patent”),...
August 9, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Cote Finds Initiating Lawsuits to Obtain Settlements Rather Than a Determination on the Merits is Not an Abuse of Process

On July 28, 2016, District Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) granted defendants AlphaCap Ventures, LLC’s, a non-practicing entity, and Richard Juarez’s (collectively, “AlphaCap”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Gust, Inc.’s (“Gust”) allegations of (1) attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act; (2) patent misuse; and...
August 4, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Pauley Holds That Administering a Test Using a Computer Is Not Patent-Eligible Under § 101

On July 29, 2016, S.D.N.Y. District Judge William H. Pauley III granted defendant PlayerLync, LLC’s (“PlayerLync”) motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed plaintiffs Multimedia Plus, Inc. and Multimedia Technologies, LLC’s (collectively “Multimedia”) patent infringement action. Multimedia alleged that PlayerLync infringed U.S....
August 3, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Hellerstein Denies Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement Based On Arguments that “Appear Not to Be Persuasive”

On July 21, 2016, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied  Defendants JP Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Chase Bank USA, National Association, Chase PaymenTech Solutions LLC, and PaymenTech LLC's (“JPMC”) motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. JPMC’s motion...
July 26, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge McMahon Dismisses Case Because Agreement that Inventor “will assign” Doesn’t Mean “did assign”

On June 14, 2016, S.D.N.Y. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted defendants HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., Blackberry Limited, Blackberry Corporation, and Motorola Mobility LLC’s (collectively “Defendants”) motion to dismiss with prejudice a patent infringement complaint filed by plaintiff Advanced Video Technologies LLC...
July 25, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Woods Holds Multiple Lawsuits on Same Patent Is Not A “Meaningful Connection” to S.D.N.Y. For Venue

On June 1, 2016, District Judge Gregory H. Woods (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant ASUS Computer International’s (“ACI’s”) motion to transfer its patent infringement suit to the Northern District of California, where it is headquartered. ACI filed its motion in response to a complaint filed...
June 21, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Briccetti Stays Patent Case Against a Customer Pending Resolution of Lawsuit Against Supplier

On June 3, 2016, District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti (S.D.N.Y.) stayed a patent infringement action brought by plaintiff Marine Travelift (“Marine”) against defendant K. Graefe & Sons Corp. (“Graefe”), pending the resolution of patent litigation between Marine and ASCOM in the United...
June 20, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Griesa Grants Endo an Injunction Against Generic Manufacturers of Opioid Opana ER

On April 29, 2016, S.D.N.Y. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa granted Defendants Actavis, Inc., Actavis South Atlantic LLC (together “Actavis”) and Roxane Laboratories, Inc.'s motion to correct the court’s August 14, 2015 judgment by ruling that Endo was not entitled to relief...
May 2, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Rakoff Holds a 3-D “Magic Trick” Implemented With Software Is Not Equivalent to One Implemented With Hardware

On April 24, 2016, District Judge Jed S. Rakoff (S.D.N.Y.) ruled that defendants Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc.'s (collectively, “Nintendo”)’s 3DS pocket gaming console does not infringe Tomita Technologies USA, LLC (“Tomita”)’s U.S. Patent No. 7,417,664 (“the ’664 patent”)...
April 28, 2016
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Judge Bianco Holds EasyWeb’s “Publishing Patent” Is Not Infringed Even Though It Broadly Claims an Abstract Idea

On March 30, 2016, District Court Judge Joseph F. Bianco granted defendant Twitter Inc.'s ("Twitter") motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement against plaintiff EasyWeb Innovations, LLC ("EasyWeb"), holding that EasyWeb's asserted patents (the "patents-in-suit") were not directed to eligible subject...
April 1, 2016
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Expert Can’t Testify for Plaintiff After Consulting for Defendant

On March 22, 2016, E.D.N.Y. District Judge Brian M. Cogan granted defendant Clorox Co.’s motion to disqualify plaintiff Auto-Kaps LLC’s expert and strike his affidavit from its summary judgment opposition.  Auto-Kaps alleged that Clorox’s “Smart Tube” bottle infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,490,743...
March 25, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Patent Arithmetic: 2 x 473mL Is Greater Than 500mL

On March 15, 2016, District Judge Alison J. Nathan granted defendant Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s (“Breckenridge”) motion for summary judgement of noninfringement of plaintiff Braintree Laboratories Inc.’s (“Braintree”) U.S. Patent No. 6,946,149 (the “‘149 patent”).  Breckenridge had sought FDA approval of...
March 24, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Pleading Merely that Defendant Had Knowledge of the Patent is Insufficient to Support a Willful Infringement Claim

On March 16, 2016, District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.) granted in part defendant Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (“Lowe’s”)’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Iron Gate Security, Inc. (“Iron Gate”)’s Complaint. Iron Gate commenced the action on November 11, 2015, alleging direct infringement, induced...
March 22, 2016
Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.)

Default Leads to Broad Injunction Against Infringement

On March 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak recommended to grant in part plaintiff JAB Distributors, LLC's ("JAB's") motion for a default judgment against defendant Home Linen Collections ("HLC"). JAB filed its complaint against HLC on November 21, 2014, alleging, among other...
March 21, 2016

Split How Many Ways?--A Single Verdict on Damages Requires A New Damages Trial Following Post-Trial Invalidation of One of the Two Asserted Patents

On February 24, 2016, District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered a new trial as to the damages awarded against defendants Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnesandnoble.com LLC, and NOOK Media LLC’s (collectively “B&N”) for their popular e-reader device, the Nook.  In November 2014,...
March 10, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

S.D.N.Y. Holds That There is No Presumption of § 101 Patent-Eligibility

On February 22, 2016, District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin (S.D.N.Y.) granted counterclaim-defendants WPP PLC’s and its subsidiaries’ (collectively, “the WPP Companies”) motion for summary judgment of patent invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The WPP Companies commenced this action in...
March 1, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Judge Can’t Find Infringement in Camouflage Shoe-Sole Patent Case

On February 19, 2016, District Judge Paul A. Crotty granted defendant Attilio Giusti Leombruni S.P.A.’s (“AGL’s”) motion to dismiss the patent infringement claim of plaintiff Lori Silverman and her company Lsil. Col. (“Plaintiffs”).  Plaintiffs had alleged that two models of AGL shoes, the...
February 29, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

“Substantial” Is Precise Enough but Means-Plus-Function Claims Need More Specificity

On January 4, 2016, District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin held that several phrases using the term “substantial” were sufficiently definite and did not require construction, while finding that several of plaintiff Verint Systems Inc.’s (“Verint”) claims invoked means-plus-function (“MPF”) claiming and were...
January 21, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

“Pulsed” Means “On/Off”, Not “High/Low”

On December 22, 2015, District Judge Nelson D. Roman denied plaintiff Radiancy Inc.’s (“Radiancy”) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s construction of the claim term “pulsed heating.” The Court had previously construed “pulse heating of said one or more heat elements” to mean...
January 11, 2016
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Discovery of Foreign Profits and Sales of Accused Products Found Relevant

On November 25, 2015, District Judge Laura Swain ordered defendant Bio-Rad to produce information related to foreign sales and profits of its Next Generation Chromatography (“NGC”) protein purification devices, overturning Magistrate Judge Netburn’s previous order that Bio-Rad need not produce such...
December 1, 2015
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

A “Clever” Patent on Routing Long-Distance Phone Calls is Held Invalid Under Section 101

On November 18, 2015, District Judge Colleen McMahon granted defendant Rubard LLC’s (“Rubard”) motion for summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 101, holding that U.S. Patent No. 7,346,156 (“the ’156 patent”) is invalid for claiming patent-ineligible subject-matter. The ’156 patent is directed...
November 30, 2015
Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.)

Sale to Corporate Affiliate Sufficient to Exhaust Patent Rights

On November 19, 2015, District Judge Denise Cote granted plaintiffs Canon Inc.’s and Canon U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Canon USA”) motion for summary judgment, holding that (i) because Canon Inc. was retroactively licensed under the asserted patents for certain products (“Océ printers”), it...
November 23, 2015

Page 6 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

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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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.
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,...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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