Patterson Belknap
Microsoft has discontinued support for Internet Explorer. To access the Patterson Belknap website, please install a modern browser like Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome.
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 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

Blog Post
Regulation E-Delivery: SEC Proposes to Make Electronic Communication the Default
On July 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a proposed rule to broaden many financial market participants’ use of electronic communications with investors and others who receive information pursuant to federal securities laws.[1]  Referred to as “Reg E-Delivery,” the new rule aims to help issuers and others who disseminate SEC-required information transition away from delivering paper documents, a communication method the Agency pointed out imposes “unnecessary costs and expenses” while “no longer reflect[ing] the preference of most investors.”[2] Commenting on the proposed rule, Chair Atkins stated: The world has changed dramatically since many of our rules were first adopted. But, all too often, our regulatory framework has remained static. … In an age of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology, a...
Blog Post
Supreme Court Reaffirms Disgorgement in Sripetch, But Jury Question Looms
In our January 2026 post, Supreme Court to Clarify the SEC’s Disgorgement Powers, we previewed the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Sripetch v. Securities & Exchange Commission,[1] a case in which defendants sought to pare back the SEC’s authority to seek disgorgement. The case resolves a circuit split that arose in the wake of Liu v. SEC.[2]  In Liu, the Court sought to clarify the SEC’s ability to impose the penalty of disgorgement, ruling that disgorgement was available as equitable relief, but to avoid transforming an equitable remedy into a punitive one, “the remedy [is restricted] to an individual wrongdoer’s net profits to be awarded for victims.” In response to Liu’s requirement that disgorgement be “awarded for victims,” the Second Circuit...
Publication
SEC Proposes Regulation E-Delivery: Default Electronic Delivery for Federal Securities Law Communications
On July 16, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) proposed Regulation E-Delivery[i], a new regulatory framework that would permit covered entities to deliver required information to investors and other recipients electronically as the default method, without first obtaining affirmative consent. In an accompanying statement, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins characterized the proposal as “an important step toward allowing the financial services industry to harness technology for the benefit of everyday American investors” and “another stride toward a regulatory framework suitable for the modern era.”[ii] Proposed Regulation E-Delivery would establish uniform conditions under which the federal securities laws’ information delivery requirements are satisfied by electronic delivery. The proposal would generally supersede the Commission’s 1995[iii] and 1996[iv] e-delivery...
Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable? Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026). The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Blog Post
Bankruptcy Court Decides Issue of First Impression Concerning Code Section 365(h)
When a debtor that is a landlord rejects a real property lease in bankruptcy, the tenant has a choice. Either the tenant can treat the lease as terminated or retain its rights under the lease. These rights include the use, possession, quiet enjoyment, subletting, and hypothecation of the property. In a recent case, the parties and the court grappled with this question: when does the tenant need to make that decision? When the lease is rejected, or by some other date? Interestingly, neither the court nor the parties found case law on this issue. It was one of first impression. In re All Star Props., LLC, No. 25-41314, 2026 Bankr. LEXIS 1461 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 15, 2026). The debtor owns...
Publication
The Growing Antitrust Risks Of AI Pricing For Health Insurers
As algorithmic pricing models continue to gain traction throughout industries, they increasingly face scrutiny from legislators, enforcers and private plaintiffs who fear their anticompetitive potential. The health insurance industry is no exception: Courts are seriously considering challenges to algorithmic models for health insurance pricing, and legislators are also stepping in. This article focuses on recent legislative and enforcement trends to regulate this developing technology, as well as two ongoing cases involving algorithmic pricing in the health insurance industry, In re: MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and In re: Zelis Repricing Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both cases are now in discovery as the plaintiffs continue to pursue...
Firm News
Patterson Belknap Recognized by Chambers in its 2026 High Net Worth Guide
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler is pleased to announce that the firm has been recognized by Chambers High Net Worth 2026 in the following practice areas: Art and Cultural Property Law – USA-Nationwide Private Wealth Law – New York Chambers is a leading independent professional legal research company, delivering detailed rankings and insights into the world’s top lawyers and law firms. Its research methodology includes detailed interviews with clients and peers and analysis of capabilities, achievement, and sector presence. The firm also received individual recognitions by Chambers in both practice areas: Anne-Laure Alléhaut is ranked in the Art and Cultural Property Law practice area in the USA. Michael Arlein is ranked in the Private Wealth Law practice area in New York. Comments regarding the firm in the Chambers High Net Worth...
Firm News
Firm Amicus Brief Plays Key Role in U.S. Supreme Court Dissent
Patterson Belknap submitted an amicus brief that played a significant role in Justice Sonia Sotomayor's June 29, 2026 dissent in Trump v. Slaughter. The brief was filed on behalf of legal historians Noah A. Rosenblum and Nathaniel Donahue, arguing that the concepts "quasi-legislative" and "quasi-judicial" as used in Humphrey's Executor had long histories in American law and provide workable definitions to guide the Court's review of congressional limitations.  In the dissent, Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson, cited the brief extensively. Justice Sotomayor relied on the brief to explain that the concepts were well-established well before the Humphrey's decision, and were used by many political figures and by courts developing a “quasi-judicial” category for officers whose duties resembled a judge’s. To read the amicus brief, please...
Firm News
Firm Tops The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Scorecard with Number 1 Ranking
Patterson Belknap has been recognized with a number 1 ranking in The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Scorecard. These rankings assess pro bono efforts among Am Law 200 firms and are based on the average number of pro bono hours per lawyer and the percentage of lawyers performing 20 or more pro bono hours in 2025. The Scorecard highlights the firm's “intense focus” on pro bono work, with an average of 185.7 hours per lawyer and 85.1% of firm lawyers doing more than 20 hours of pro bono. The article includes commentary from Pro Bono Chair, Michael F. Buchanan, on the firm’s commitment to both impact litigation and pro bono work that has an impact on people's lives, such as access to health care,...
Publication
Not Over Yet?: Drug Manufacturers Eye Potential Circuit Split on Federal Drug Pricing Program
The Inflation Reduction Act’s Drug Price Negotiation Program has been the subject of litigation since Congress passed it in 2022 in an effort to curb the cost to Medicare of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs. These challenges—initiated in federal court by major pharmaceutical manufacturers—have largely been unsuccessful, rejected in both federal district and appeals courts in the Second and Third Circuits, with writs of certiorari uniformly denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. But all hope is not yet lost for pharmaceutical manufacturers’ opposition to the DPNP. A few challenges remain pending in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Fifth Circuits, with the latter signaling potential receptiveness to the manufacturers’ positions at oral argument. To continue reading Amy Vegari and...
Blog Post
Regulation E-Delivery: SEC Proposes to Make Electronic Communication the Default
On July 16, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced a proposed rule to broaden many financial market participants’ use of electronic communications with investors and others who receive information pursuant to federal securities laws.[1]  Referred to as “Reg E-Delivery,” the new rule aims to help issuers and others who disseminate SEC-required information transition away from delivering paper documents, a communication method the Agency pointed out imposes “unnecessary costs and expenses” while “no longer reflect[ing] the preference of most investors.”[2] Commenting on the proposed rule, Chair Atkins stated: The world has changed dramatically since many of our rules were first adopted. But, all too often, our regulatory framework has remained static. … In an age of artificial intelligence and blockchain technology, a...
Blog Post
Supreme Court Reaffirms Disgorgement in Sripetch, But Jury Question Looms
In our January 2026 post, Supreme Court to Clarify the SEC’s Disgorgement Powers, we previewed the Supreme Court’s decision to take up Sripetch v. Securities & Exchange Commission,[1] a case in which defendants sought to pare back the SEC’s authority to seek disgorgement. The case resolves a circuit split that arose in the wake of Liu v. SEC.[2]  In Liu, the Court sought to clarify the SEC’s ability to impose the penalty of disgorgement, ruling that disgorgement was available as equitable relief, but to avoid transforming an equitable remedy into a punitive one, “the remedy [is restricted] to an individual wrongdoer’s net profits to be awarded for victims.” In response to Liu’s requirement that disgorgement be “awarded for victims,” the Second Circuit...
Publication
SEC Proposes Regulation E-Delivery: Default Electronic Delivery for Federal Securities Law Communications
On July 16, 2026, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or “Commission”) proposed Regulation E-Delivery[i], a new regulatory framework that would permit covered entities to deliver required information to investors and other recipients electronically as the default method, without first obtaining affirmative consent. In an accompanying statement, SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins characterized the proposal as “an important step toward allowing the financial services industry to harness technology for the benefit of everyday American investors” and “another stride toward a regulatory framework suitable for the modern era.”[ii] Proposed Regulation E-Delivery would establish uniform conditions under which the federal securities laws’ information delivery requirements are satisfied by electronic delivery. The proposal would generally supersede the Commission’s 1995[iii] and 1996[iv] e-delivery...
Blog Post
Fees Recoverable by Oversecured Creditors in Bankruptcy: The Application of Code Sections 506(b) and 502(b)
Bankruptcy Code section 506(b) entitles an oversecured creditor to post-petition interest and reasonable fees and other charges. Are a creditor’s pre-petition charges also subject to a court’s view of what is reasonable? Courts are split on this issue. A judge in New York recently explained why, in his view, reasonableness is not the right standard for the pre-petition portion of a claim. Pre-petition charges should be determined by applicable state law and not a judge’s analysis of what is reasonable. In re 1300 Desert Willow Road, LLC, No. 25-11375, 2026 WL 2088511 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jul. 20, 2026). The debtor is a single-asset real estate company. The creditor had loaned the debtor $20 million secured by a mortgage on real property. The debtor...
Blog Post
Bankruptcy Court Decides Issue of First Impression Concerning Code Section 365(h)
When a debtor that is a landlord rejects a real property lease in bankruptcy, the tenant has a choice. Either the tenant can treat the lease as terminated or retain its rights under the lease. These rights include the use, possession, quiet enjoyment, subletting, and hypothecation of the property. In a recent case, the parties and the court grappled with this question: when does the tenant need to make that decision? When the lease is rejected, or by some other date? Interestingly, neither the court nor the parties found case law on this issue. It was one of first impression. In re All Star Props., LLC, No. 25-41314, 2026 Bankr. LEXIS 1461 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. June 15, 2026). The debtor owns...
Publication
The Growing Antitrust Risks Of AI Pricing For Health Insurers
As algorithmic pricing models continue to gain traction throughout industries, they increasingly face scrutiny from legislators, enforcers and private plaintiffs who fear their anticompetitive potential. The health insurance industry is no exception: Courts are seriously considering challenges to algorithmic models for health insurance pricing, and legislators are also stepping in. This article focuses on recent legislative and enforcement trends to regulate this developing technology, as well as two ongoing cases involving algorithmic pricing in the health insurance industry, In re: MultiPlan Health Insurance Provider Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and In re: Zelis Repricing Antitrust Litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Both cases are now in discovery as the plaintiffs continue to pursue...
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