Resource Library

On June 13, 2022, the US Supreme Court resolved a long-standing circuit split holding that broad U.S.-style discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 is not available in private foreign arbitrations. In the past decade, litigants in international arbitrations had been trying to use section 1782 more frequently to obtain comprehensive discovery that would otherwise typically be unavailable in arbitration abroad. While the Supreme Court has ostensibly put an end to that practice, the possibility of further litigation over section 1782 remains, as parties are likely to test the boundaries of the Supreme Court’s decision.

On May 26, 2022, the US Department of Commerce, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued a final rule, finalizing changes to License Exception Authorized Cybersecurity Exports (ACE) and making related changes to other sections of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). These changes include narrowing of exceptions for end use restrictions applicable to certain government end users in Cyprus, Israel, and Taiwan under License Exception ACE and addition of new end use restrictions for License Exception ENC (Encryption Commodities, Software, and Technology).

Due to the nature of the state-by-state regulation and ongoing developments in state and federal regulations following the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there is much uncertainty regarding many of these issues. This article provides a brief summary of: (1) some potential options to structure these employee benefits, including certain key issues and risks, and (2) the employment law issues that may arise.

The US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has created profound uncertainty for individuals and entities attempting to navigate a web of inconsistent and often conflicting federal and state laws. One key question is the impact of individual state laws on the provision of health-related services or benefits across state lines, particularly where state laws provide for criminal liability.

The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has presented many issues for sponsors of group health plans to contemplate as they decide whether and how to proceed with the offering and administration of abortion services. While each group health plan sponsor will need to consider its own objectives, plan populations and tolerance for risk,
this article provides a list which identifies factors that sponsors should address before taking any definitive action.

Recently amended DGCL Section 102(b)(7) allows Delaware corporations to provide officers with exculpatory protections for personal monetary damages resulting from a breach of fiduciary duty in certain actions. While the protections are subject to limitations and not as broad as those provided for directors, the amendment addresses the historic disparate treatment of officers and directors in class action litigations.

On Aug. 5, 2022, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal ruled that an artificial intelligence (AI) system cannot be listed as a named inventor on a patent application, affirming the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rulings. The Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Act requires an “inventor,” as defined in Section 100(f), to be a “natural person."

The Ninth Circuit recently concluded that job applicants are not entitled to compensation for time devoted to pre-employment drug tests because an employment relationship has not yet been formed. The Ninth Circuit held that the “control test” does not apply to job applicants, and that, under California contract law, the applicants had no contract for employment until they passed the pre-hire drug tests. Johnson v. WinCo Foods.

As various restrictions put in place during the global coronavirus pandemic have lifted across the world, many businesses have embraced hybrid working. However, as we look to the future, are these working arrangements of the so-called “new normal” really here to stay?

As previously reported, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization held that the
authority to regulate abortion is returned to the states, permitting states to regulate
abortion within their borders. Thus, employers and administrators of plans that cover
abortion services will need to be cognizant of state restrictions on availability of abortions
and related services. Texas has been prominent in
legislating restrictions on performance of and access to abortions.