Second Circuit Criminal Law Blog
Categories / Search
Search Blog
Filter By Categories:
- Acquittal
- Appellate Procedure
- Bail Proceedings
- Conspiracy
- Conviction Error
- Cybercrimes/Technology
- DOJ Policy
- Due Process
- Evidentiary Rulings
- Expert Testimony
- FCPA
- Fifth Amendment
- Forfeiture
- Fourth Amendment
- Grand Jury
- Guidelines
- Guilty Plea
- Habeas Corpus
- Hearsay
- Honest Services Fraud
- Immigration
- Ineffective Assistance
- Insider Trading
- Internal Investigations
- Jurisdiction and Procedure
- Juror Misconduct
- Mandatory Minimums
- Maritime Law
- New Trial
- Newly Discovered Evidence
- Obstruction of Justice
- Plea
- Plea Agreements
- Politics
- Procedural Reasonableness
- Qualified Immunity
- Reasonableness Review
- Recusal
- Restitution
- Ripeness
- Rule 11
- Sarbanes-Oxley
- Scienter
- Second Amendment
- Section 2255
- Securities Fraud
- Sentencing
- Sentencing and Eighth Amendment
- Sixth Amendment
- Speedy Trial
- Statutory Interpretation
- Sufficiency
- Supervised Release
- Tax Fraud
- Tax Violations
- Trials and Evidentiary Rulings
- Vagueness
- Venue
- White Collar Crime
- Wire Fraud
Filter By Industries:
Category: New Trial
Show All CategoriesFirm Highlights
Publication
Executive Order Addressing Anticompetitive Behavior In The Food Supply Chain Provides Insight On The Trump Administration’s Antitrust Enforcement Priorities
In December 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, titled “Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain,” signaling in no uncertain terms that his Administration intends to crack down on collusion in food-related industries. The Order, among other things, directs the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to create “Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces” that will investigate domestic entities to identify any anticompetitive behavior in U.S. food supply chains, as well as any ways in which foreign entities may be increasing the cost of U.S. food products. The Order underscores the Executive Branch’s existing focus on the food sector, with DOJ’s Antitrust Division having formalized a partnership with...
Publication
Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest.
AB 290, the California statute at issue...
Firm News
Employment Litigator Millie Warner Joins Patterson Belknap as Partner
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP is pleased to announce that Millie Warner has joined the firm as a Partner in its Litigation department and as a member of the Employment Litigation, Workplace Investigations, and Compliance practice. Ms. Warner advises clients on a wide range of employment law and human resources issues. She represents clients in employment litigation, conducts sensitive internal investigations, crafts and litigates employee non-compete and non-solicit agreements, advises on enforcement actions, and provides other strategic counseling to help corporations minimize legal, compliance, and reputational risks.
Ms. Warner counsels clients on disciplinary processes, termination of employees, and day-to-day human resources matters including drafting employment agreements, separation agreements, confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements, and employment policies. She also has...
Event
Four Firm Partners to Speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations
On Thursday, April 23 and Friday, April 24, Partners Laura Butzel, Robin Krause, Susan Vignola, and Justin Zaremby will speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations.
On April 23 at 4:45pm, Ms. Krause will speak on a panel titled "Navigating Attorney General Oversight and Investigations," discussing the scope of Attorney General oversight, an overview of the current landscape and share guidance on approaching Attorney General investigations and inquiries.
On April 24 at 10:30am, Ms. Butzel will speak on a session titled "The Heightened Focus on Terrorism and the Impact on Tax-Exempt Organizations." Ms. Butzel will join a panel for a program that will focus on the historic use of anti-terrorism rules and enforcement mechanisms in the...
Blog Post
“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity
On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2026).
Bytemark provides a secure mobile ticketing platform for transit, tourism, and events. Bytemark has sued several defendants, including NJ Transit, for patent infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Bytemark alleges that two defendants, after entering into confidentiality agreements with Bytemark, used Bytemark’s intellectual property and trade secrets to secure a contract with NJ Transit for mobile ticketing and cut Bytemark out of the bidding process. Id. at *2–4.
In October 2022, NJ...
Blog Post
Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted to require courts to enforce parties’ contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes. In bankruptcy cases. judges will consider if sending parties to arbitration in light of the specific claims asserted conflicts with bankruptcy jurisdictional rules.
A recurring issue that litigants raise is whether a conflict exists between the FAA and requirements of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For instance, courts wrestle with how the assertion of bankruptcy-derived core claims and non-bankruptcy noncore claims impacts whether they should enforce an arbitration clause.
Core claims are those that derive from the Bankruptcy Code, such federal fraudulent transfer claims. Noncore claims are those that would exist between parties even outside of bankruptcy, such as breach of contract claims governed...
Blog Post
Please Leave a Message: Judge Hellerstein Finds Claims Directed to Missed-Call Categorization to Be Abstract
Recently, District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendant CloudTalk.io, Inc.’s (“CloudTalk”) motion to dismiss Missed Call, LLC’s (“Missed Call”) complaint, finding that the asserted patent was directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept. Missed Call, LLC v. CloudTalk.io, Inc., No. 25 Civ. 7776 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 12, 2026).
Missed Call is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 (“the ’872 Patent”), which is directed to a communication device that indicates whether a missed call is urgent or non-urgent based on how the call was terminated. Id. at *1. Specifically, calls terminated by a network are categorized as urgent, and calls terminated by the caller are categorized as non-urgent. Id. Missed Call accused CloudTalk of infringing the ’872 Patent....
Publication
The Administration Is Illegally Firing Court-Appointed US Attorneys
The U.S. Department of Justice isn’t winning many friends on the front lines of the federal judiciary, the U.S. district courts. Besides repeatedly violating court orders, the DOJ is also thumbing its nose at the district courts when they attempt to appoint qualified persons to serve as U.S. attorneys in the absence of a Senate-confirmed nominee. Recent headlines tell the story: “U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House” and "DOJ fires US attorney hours after judges appoint him."
The terminations by Todd Blanche, the deputy U.S. attorney general, are graceless and bombastic:
“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.”
"Here we go again. [Eastern District of Virginia]...
Firm News
Firm Achieves Significant Lanham Act Win for Johnson & Johnson
On April 17, 2026, Patterson Belknap secured a significant victory for our clients, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“J&J”), when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a preliminary injunction in a Lanham Act suit filed by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”).
The dispute concerned a retrospective scientific study sponsored by J&J that compared the real-world efficacy of both companies’ prostate cancer medications, concluding that J&J’s ERLEADA was associated with a reduction in overall risk of death approximately 50% greater than Bayer’s NUBEQA. Bayer alleged that the study was methodologically flawed, and that J&J’s publication of the study results therefore constituted “false advertising.” The statements at issue included a presentation given by the study authors at a medical...
Event
Firm Partners to Speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference
On April 22, Partners Lachlan Campbell-Verduyn and Andrew D. Cohen will speak at the American Conference Institute's 2026 Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, the preeminent forum for pharmaceutical patent litigation.
At 9:45am, Dr. Campbell-Verduyn will speak on a panel titled "Avoiding Costly Conception and Inventorship Missteps in Pharmaceutical Patent Cases." With Tom Irving and Jonathan James Underwood, she will discuss recent cases and best practices around questions of inventorship and conception.
At 3:30pm, Dr. Cohen will speak on a program titled "Promise and Peril for Patents: Navigating Mandated Disclosures and Prior Art Pitfalls." He will join Angie Verrecchio (Senior Counsel, Patent Litigation, Johnson & Johnson), Ryan Johnson, and Ricardo Camposanto to explore whether or not clinical trials and disclosures of information are...
Publication
Executive Order Addressing Anticompetitive Behavior In The Food Supply Chain Provides Insight On The Trump Administration’s Antitrust Enforcement Priorities
In December 2025, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order, titled “Addressing Security Risks from Price Fixing and Anti-Competitive Behavior in the Food Supply Chain,” signaling in no uncertain terms that his Administration intends to crack down on collusion in food-related industries. The Order, among other things, directs the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission to create “Food Supply Chain Security Task Forces” that will investigate domestic entities to identify any anticompetitive behavior in U.S. food supply chains, as well as any ways in which foreign entities may be increasing the cost of U.S. food products. The Order underscores the Executive Branch’s existing focus on the food sector, with DOJ’s Antitrust Division having formalized a partnership with...
Publication
Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest.
AB 290, the California statute at issue...
Firm News
Employment Litigator Millie Warner Joins Patterson Belknap as Partner
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP is pleased to announce that Millie Warner has joined the firm as a Partner in its Litigation department and as a member of the Employment Litigation, Workplace Investigations, and Compliance practice. Ms. Warner advises clients on a wide range of employment law and human resources issues. She represents clients in employment litigation, conducts sensitive internal investigations, crafts and litigates employee non-compete and non-solicit agreements, advises on enforcement actions, and provides other strategic counseling to help corporations minimize legal, compliance, and reputational risks.
Ms. Warner counsels clients on disciplinary processes, termination of employees, and day-to-day human resources matters including drafting employment agreements, separation agreements, confidentiality and restrictive covenant agreements, and employment policies. She also has...
Event
Four Firm Partners to Speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations
On Thursday, April 23 and Friday, April 24, Partners Laura Butzel, Robin Krause, Susan Vignola, and Justin Zaremby will speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations.
On April 23 at 4:45pm, Ms. Krause will speak on a panel titled "Navigating Attorney General Oversight and Investigations," discussing the scope of Attorney General oversight, an overview of the current landscape and share guidance on approaching Attorney General investigations and inquiries.
On April 24 at 10:30am, Ms. Butzel will speak on a session titled "The Heightened Focus on Terrorism and the Impact on Tax-Exempt Organizations." Ms. Butzel will join a panel for a program that will focus on the historic use of anti-terrorism rules and enforcement mechanisms in the...
Blog Post
“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity
On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2026).
Bytemark provides a secure mobile ticketing platform for transit, tourism, and events. Bytemark has sued several defendants, including NJ Transit, for patent infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Bytemark alleges that two defendants, after entering into confidentiality agreements with Bytemark, used Bytemark’s intellectual property and trade secrets to secure a contract with NJ Transit for mobile ticketing and cut Bytemark out of the bidding process. Id. at *2–4.
In October 2022, NJ...
Blog Post
Arbitration and Bankruptcy: Can a Debtor that is Party to an Arbitration Agreement Lack Authority to Arbitrate Core Bankruptcy Claims?
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was enacted to require courts to enforce parties’ contractual agreements to arbitrate disputes. In bankruptcy cases. judges will consider if sending parties to arbitration in light of the specific claims asserted conflicts with bankruptcy jurisdictional rules.
A recurring issue that litigants raise is whether a conflict exists between the FAA and requirements of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. For instance, courts wrestle with how the assertion of bankruptcy-derived core claims and non-bankruptcy noncore claims impacts whether they should enforce an arbitration clause.
Core claims are those that derive from the Bankruptcy Code, such federal fraudulent transfer claims. Noncore claims are those that would exist between parties even outside of bankruptcy, such as breach of contract claims governed...
