Law/Legal
Here's a look at documents from law firms and legal groups
Featured Stories
Quarles Team Helps Intake Breathing Bring Home Important Patent Protection Win in Federal Court
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, May 15 -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Quarles Team Helps Intake Breathing Bring Home Important Patent Protection Win in Federal Court
Dawn David and Elizabeth Shirreff, Quarles & Brady attorneys in the Intellectual Property Practice Group, helped client Intake Breathing Technology secure an important win in U.S. federal court against a company selling an imitation product.
On behalf of Intake, the Quarles team sought a preliminary injunction as part of a countersuit against the company, which had filed a suit last summer "seeking
... Show Full Article
MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, May 15 -- Quarles and Brady, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Quarles Team Helps Intake Breathing Bring Home Important Patent Protection Win in Federal Court
Dawn David and Elizabeth Shirreff, Quarles & Brady attorneys in the Intellectual Property Practice Group, helped client Intake Breathing Technology secure an important win in U.S. federal court against a company selling an imitation product.
On behalf of Intake, the Quarles team sought a preliminary injunction as part of a countersuit against the company, which had filed a suit last summer "seekingdeclaratory judgment of noninfringement regarding the snore-relief product it sold on Amazon as nasal strips," noted a Law.com article about the case.
U.S. District Senior Judge Reggie Walton of the District of Columbia ruled last week in favor of Intake and granted the preliminary injunction, finding that "that the balance of equities clearly favors the issuance of a preliminary injunction, especially because the Court has concluded that the plaintiff is likely infringing the defendant's patent and causing the defendant irreparable harm."
In the Law.com article, David said the decision provides important protection of technology Intake has worked hard to develop. An excerpt:
"We're very pleased with the decision and appreciate the Court's careful consideration of the issues," Dawn David, a partner at Quarles in Milwaukee said Tuesday in a statement shared with Law.com via email.
"Intake Breathing is a family company that spent years building and patenting innovative technology that delivers life changing breathing," David added. "This decision helps protect that and the customers who depend on it."
* * *
Original text here: https://www.quarles.com/newsroom/news/quarles-team-helps-intake-breathing-bring-home-important-patent-protection-win-in-federal-court
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Littler Issues Commentary: Connecticut Passes Law Significantly Regulating Use of AI in Employment
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 15 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by senior counsel Allan G. King and shareholder Niloy Ray:
* * *
Connecticut Passes Law Significantly Regulating Use of AI in Employment
On May 11, 2026, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Senate Bill 5, and Governor Lamont is expected to sign it into law. The law is a comprehensive online safety law with significant requirements relating to Automated Employment-related Decision Technology (AEDT). These AEDT requirements combine concepts from the current AI regulations in California
... Show Full Article
SAN FRANCISCO, California, May 15 -- Littler, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by senior counsel Allan G. King and shareholder Niloy Ray:
* * *
Connecticut Passes Law Significantly Regulating Use of AI in Employment
On May 11, 2026, the Connecticut General Assembly passed Senate Bill 5, and Governor Lamont is expected to sign it into law. The law is a comprehensive online safety law with significant requirements relating to Automated Employment-related Decision Technology (AEDT). These AEDT requirements combine concepts from the current AI regulations in Californiaand the European Union, taking a disclosure-focused approach that encourages, but does not impose, substantive pre-use design or audit mandates. It also innovates by creating a program for third-party risk assessments as a means to vet and certify AI models, but falls short of making such evidence broadly admissible to defend against AI model-specific claims.
Broad Definition of Covered Technologies: The law defines the covered technology broadly. An AEDT is any system that processes personal data and produces outputs (e.g., predictions, scores, rankings, classifications, or recommendations) that are a "substantial factor" in making or materially influencing employment decisions (e.g., hiring, promotion, discipline, termination, and similar decisions tied to terms of employment). It expressly excludes generic software tools (e.g., spreadsheets, word processors) and tools used only incidentally or for descriptive/statistical purposes. This definition focuses on predictive AI technologies and the resulting potential of algorithmic bias (rather than generative AI large language models and their attendant primary risks of hallucination/inaccuracy). It will likely be read broadly to include GenAI if it is applied in a manner that might cause cognizable discriminatory harm or other covered injury.
Evidence of Bias Testing: The law amends Connecticut's existing anti-discrimination framework effective October 1, 2026. This amendment explicitly provides that use of an automated system is not a defense to a discrimination claim under state law. That said, evidence of bias-testing and similar efforts, including the quality, efficacy, recency and scope of these efforts, the results of these efforts, and the response to the findings, "may be consider[ed]" by courts or agencies in deciding liability. This aligns Connecticut with similar aspects of California's Fair Employment and Housing rules, effectively endorsing the heightened value of (and need for) this sort of pre-use and potentially in-use testing of AI tools.
Developer-Deployer Division of Labor: The law allocates obligations between developers and deployers, with the primary compliance burden falling on deployers (i.e., employers or entities using the technology). Starting on October 1, 2026, developers must provide deployers with sufficient information to enable compliance with the law's requirements (but only where the technology is marketed or intended to materially influence employment decisions). There isn't any listing or categorization, however, of the types of information that the developers are required to create in the first place, thus leaving open whether the information needed or requested by deployers will, in practice, be available (and if not, whether there is any imperative for developers to create that information upon request).
Notice and Disclosure: The law imposes a real-time interaction disclosure requirement. A deployer must inform any employee or applicant, in plain language, when they are interacting with AEDT. This disclosure is not required if it would be obvious to a reasonable person that the interaction involves an AEDT.
The law also requires a pre-decision notice when AEDT is used to generate outputs for, or as a substantial factor in, an employment decision. Before the decision is made, the deployer must provide a written notice to the affected individual that discloses:
* the fact that the technology is being used,
* the purpose of the technology and the type of employment decision involved,
* the trade name of the system,
* the categories of personal data processed and how those data are assessed,
* the sources of the personal data, and
* contact information for the deployer.
Notably, the law allows developers to contractually assume these deployer notice and disclosure obligations.
Trade Secrets Safe Harbor: The law includes a trade secret safe harbor: neither developers nor deployers are required to disclose trade secrets or other legally protected information, and merely need affirmatively notify the recipient that information is being withheld on that basis.
Independent Verification Organizations: The law establishes a pilot program beginning July 1, 2027, for "independent verification organizations", i.e., third-party entities approved by the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection to assess whether AI systems meet defined risk mitigation and safety standards (e.g., preventing personal injury, property damage, or data privacy harms). Approved organizations (capped at five) must apply and enter into a state-supervised memorandum of understanding that defines the scope of their verification activities, required methodologies, reporting obligations, and governance standards. These organizations do not receive formal certification or confer regulatory approval; rather, they issue verification assessments whose legal effect is limited. They may be used as evidence in certain private civil cases but do not create a safe harbor, presumption of compliance, or defense in enforcement actions. The program is temporary (sunsets in 2030) and designed as a testbed for potential future AI auditing or certification regimes, with required state evaluation and recommendations for expansion or modification.
Enforcement: Violations of this law are deemed unfair or deceptive trade practices pursuant to the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), enforceable exclusively by the Connecticut attorney general. There's no private right of action, and a temporary cure period through December 31, 2027, may be available at the AG's discretion.
The impact of this law is not to be underestimated. Employers should recognize that, although the statute stops short of mandating formal audits or certification, its structure signals a regulatory trajectory toward more formalized, third-party validation of AI systems. While we await implementing regulations, the law by itself reinforces that transparency of use and risk assessments are commonsense expectations when employers implement AI tools, and that independent, third-party audits may be the gold standard for defensibility. As a practical matter, employers deploying AEDT should begin building internal governance frameworks now, including documentation of system purpose and data inputs, comprehensive AI/AEDT use-case vetting guidelines and processes, regular bias testing, and vendor diligence protocols, to ensure they can satisfy both current disclosure requirements and likely future expectations around independent review and risk mitigation.
* * *
Authors
Allan G. King
Senior Counsel
Austin
* * *
Niloy Ray
Shareholder
Minneapolis
* * *
Original text here: https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/connecticut-passes-law-significantly-regulating-use-ai-employment
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Jean E. Smith-Gonnell Discusses the Impact of Medical Marijuana's Federal Reclassification on California Businesses
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 15 -- Frantz Ward, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jean E. Smith-Gonnell Discusses the Impact of Medical Marijuana's Federal Reclassification on California Businesses
Partner Jean E. Smith-Gonnell discussed how the recent federal reclassification of medical marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug will affect California cannabis businesses in an interview with Spectrum News 1.
The article, "Tax relief comes with caveats as federal marijuana rules shift," discusses the impacts of reclassification on cannabis businesses including allowing medical marijuana
... Show Full Article
CLEVELAND, Ohio, May 15 -- Frantz Ward, a law firm, issued the following news:
* * *
Jean E. Smith-Gonnell Discusses the Impact of Medical Marijuana's Federal Reclassification on California Businesses
Partner Jean E. Smith-Gonnell discussed how the recent federal reclassification of medical marijuana from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug will affect California cannabis businesses in an interview with Spectrum News 1.
The article, "Tax relief comes with caveats as federal marijuana rules shift," discusses the impacts of reclassification on cannabis businesses including allowing medical marijuanabusinesses to claim standard business tax deductions.
However, Jean shares that about 95% of the state's marijuana revenue comes from recreational cannabis and highlights that many of her clients no longer hold medical licenses. Therefore, because recreational cannabis has not been rescheduled, most businesses will not feel any immediate benefits from the change.
Read the full article here (https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la/business/2026/04/24/cannabis-reclassification-schedule-three-marijuana).
With more than 15 years of experience in the cannabis industry, Jean focuses her cannabis practice on corporate, regulatory, transactional, and litigation matters for dispensaries, growers, receivers, investors, and other industry stakeholders. She assists clients in disputes, maintaining regulatory compliance, cannabis licensing, mitigating legal risks, establishing and reorganizing their companies, and day-to-day operations.
Spectrum News 1 is a 24/7 news and information network providing thorough multimedia coverage of diverse issues across Los Angeles.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.frantzward.com/jean-e-smith-gonnell-discusses-the-impact-of-medical-marijuanas-federal-reclassification-on-california-businesses/
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Husch Blackwell Named a Top Law Firm for Associate Satisfaction
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, May 15 -- Husch Blackwell, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Husch Blackwell Named a Top Law Firm for Associate Satisfaction
National law firm Husch Blackwell was ranked as one of the top law firms for associate satisfaction in BTI Consulting's Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026 report.
The report is based on organic, unprompted feedback from more than 5,000 across seven activities:
* Abundant and clear commitment to accelerate associates' careers
* Meaningful and hyper-relevant training
* High-impact mentoring
* Clear career growth path within
... Show Full Article
KANSAS CITY, Missouri, May 15 -- Husch Blackwell, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Husch Blackwell Named a Top Law Firm for Associate Satisfaction
National law firm Husch Blackwell was ranked as one of the top law firms for associate satisfaction in BTI Consulting's Associate Satisfaction A-Listers 2026 report.
The report is based on organic, unprompted feedback from more than 5,000 across seven activities:
* Abundant and clear commitment to accelerate associates' careers
* Meaningful and hyper-relevant training
* High-impact mentoring
* Clear career growth path withintheir firm
* Strong job satisfaction
* Targeted support addressing women associates' distinct needs
* Having at least one partner actively invested in their success
Husch Blackwell was one of 36 firms that associates recognized for keeping them happy in their work lives.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.huschblackwell.com/inthenews/husch-blackwell-named-a-top-law-firm-for-associate-satisfaction
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: Supreme Court Decides Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 15 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by counsel Alex Harrell and S. Vance Wittie:
* * *
Supreme Court Decides Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, holding that a plaintiff's claim that a freight broker negligently hired a motor carrier to transport goods is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because, under the FAAAA, states retain authority to regulate
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 15 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by counsel Alex Harrell and S. Vance Wittie:
* * *
Supreme Court Decides Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC, No. 24-1238, holding that a plaintiff's claim that a freight broker negligently hired a motor carrier to transport goods is not preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act because, under the FAAAA, states retain authority to regulatesafety with respect to motor vehicles.
Freight brokers connect sellers with motor carriers that can transport the sellers' goods. As payment, brokers receive the difference between the price a seller pays to move the goods and the carrier's transportation fee.
In 1980, concerned that existing federal regulations were stifling brokers' development, Congress deregulated aspects of the trucking industry by passing the Motor Carrier Act. Despite the existing federal regulatory framework, states also passed regulations that impacted -- and inhibited competition within -- the trucking industry. Congress addressed that problem in 1994 by passing the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which expressly preempts certain state regulations involving motor carriers and other players in the trucking industry, including brokers. This preemption provision, though broad, also contains exceptions, including one providing that the FAAAA "shall not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles."
Shawn Montgomery was severely injured when a tractor-trailer careened off course and collided with Montgomery's own truck while he was stopped on the side of the road. Montgomery sued the negligent driver as well as Caribe Transport, the motor carrier for which the negligent driver was working at the time of the accident, and C.H. Robinson, the freight broker that had arranged for Caribe Transport to deliver the load that driver was carrying. Montgomery alleged that C.H. Robinson therefore knew or should have known that choosing Caribe Transport to transport goods was reasonably likely to result in crashes that would injure others. C.H. Robinson moved for a judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Montgomery's negligent hiring claim was expressly preempted by the FAAAA. The District Court agreed and entered a judgment in C.H. Robinson's favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while Montgomery's negligent hiring claim fell within the FAAAA's preemption provision, it was saved by the FAAAA's safety exception. Acknowledging that all parties agreed that common-law duties and standards of care form part of a state's authority to regulate safety, the Supreme Court determined that the question boiled down to whether Montgomery's negligent hiring claim was a claim "with respect to motor vehicles," as the safety exception requires. The FAAAA does not define the phrase "with respect to" but the Court construed it as meaning "concerns" or "regards." So, putting the pieces together, the Court concluded that the safety exception saves a claim from being preempted if the claim "concerns" or "regards" the vehicles used in transportation.
Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier, the Court found, "concerns" motor vehicles -- i.e., the trucks that will transport the goods. Consequently, Montgomery's negligent-hiring claim fell within the FAAAA's safety exception, which saved it from preemption.
The Supreme Court agreed that this interpretation leads to an anomaly in the FAAAA since another subsection of the statute preempts state regulation of "intrastate" rates, routes, or services "of any freight forwarder or broker." It is unclear, the Court granted, why Congress would completely preempt state regulation of brokers for intrastate rates, routes, and services while only partially preempting state regulation of brokers for interstate rates, routes, and services. But the Court nevertheless concluded it would be even odder to say that the alleged tort -- the negligent hiring of an unsafe motor carrier whose truck caused an injury -- is not an exercise of "the safety regulatory authority of a State with respect to motor vehicles." Better to live with the mystery than to rewrite the statute, the Court determined.
Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, which was unanimous. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Alito joined.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Alex Harrell
Counsel
Dallas
+1 469 357 2540
alex.harrell@faegredrinker.com
* * *
S. Vance Wittie
Counsel
Dallas
+1 469 357 2537
vance.wittie@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/supreme-court-decides-montgomery-v-caribe-transport-ii-llc
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath Issues Commentary: Supreme Court Decides Jules vs. Andre Balazs Properties
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 15 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by associate Abdullah M. Azkalany and partner Brian J. Paul:
* * *
Supreme Court Decides Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83, holding that where a federal court has jurisdiction over a case and stays the proceedings pending arbitration under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the court will have jurisdiction to decide later motions
... Show Full Article
MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota, May 15 -- Faegre Drinker Biddle and Reath, a law firm, issued the following commentary on May 14, 2026, by associate Abdullah M. Azkalany and partner Brian J. Paul:
* * *
Supreme Court Decides Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties
On May 14, 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous decision in Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties, No. 25-83, holding that where a federal court has jurisdiction over a case and stays the proceedings pending arbitration under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), the court will have jurisdiction to decide later motionsfiled under Sections 9 or 10 to confirm or vacate a resulting arbitral award.
Petitioner filed state and federal claims in federal district court. Respondent moved to stay the proceedings and compel arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the parties. The district court stayed the proceedings, and Petitioner then commenced arbitration. Respondent prevailed on all claims in the arbitration and moved under Section 9 to confirm the arbitration award in the same district court that stayed the case. Petitioner cross-moved to vacate the award under Section 10, arguing that the district court did not have either federal question or diversity jurisdiction to confirm the award.
The district court rejected Petitioner's arguments and confirmed the award. The Second Circuit affirmed, reasoning that a district court that stays proceedings pending arbitration under Section 3 will have jurisdiction to confirm an award regardless of whether the district court has an independent jurisdictional basis over the Section 9 and Section 10 proceedings.
The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that while the FAA does not itself create federal jurisdiction, because the district court had federal question jurisdiction over the case under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 before staying the proceedings, the district retained jurisdiction to rule on the Section 9 and 10 motions, which were a part of that same case.
The Court distinguished these facts from "freestanding" FAA motions brought in federal court, where the original proceedings were not before the district court and Section 9 and 10 motions marked the parties' first visit to that court, as is the case where parties proceed directly to arbitration.
Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
* * *
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
* * *
Meet the Authors
Abdullah M. Azkalany
Associate
Des Moines
+1 515 447 4780
abdullah.azkalany@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Brian J. Paul
Partner
Indianapolis
+1 317 237 8288
brian.paul@faegredrinker.com
* * *
Original text here: https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/5/supreme-court-decides-jules-v-andre-balazs-properties
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
Daily Report Highlights Alston & Bird's IP Bench Expansion to Meet Growing AI-Driven Demand
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 15 -- Alston and Bird, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Daily Report Highlights Alston & Bird's IP Bench Expansion to Meet Growing AI-Driven Demand
A recent Daily Report article highlighted Alston & Bird's continued investment in its nationally recognized Intellectual Property Group as demand grows at the intersection of artificial intelligence and IP law.
Natalie Clayton and John Haynes, co-chairs of Alston & Bird's Intellectual Property Group, commented on how AI is driving demand for sophisticated legal services across copyright, patents, and litigation.
... Show Full Article
ATLANTA, Georgia, May 15 -- Alston and Bird, a law firm, issued the following news release:
* * *
Daily Report Highlights Alston & Bird's IP Bench Expansion to Meet Growing AI-Driven Demand
A recent Daily Report article highlighted Alston & Bird's continued investment in its nationally recognized Intellectual Property Group as demand grows at the intersection of artificial intelligence and IP law.
Natalie Clayton and John Haynes, co-chairs of Alston & Bird's Intellectual Property Group, commented on how AI is driving demand for sophisticated legal services across copyright, patents, and litigation.Notably, the firm is strategically expanding its capabilities in these areas and recently added three new partners who focus on disputes involving digital media, AI, and emerging technologies. Michael Elkin and Sean Anderson joined the firm's New York office, and Jennifer Golinveaux joined in San Francisco.
"Our team is at the forefront of navigating how emerging technologies are reshaping intellectual property rights," Natalie said.
Alston & Bird represents clients in complex intellectual property disputes where technology and business risk intersect. The group litigates matters nationwide and before the Federal Circuit and International Trade Commission (ITC) and coordinates closely with patent counsel on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. With a focus on trial readiness and efficient execution, the group is built to handle disputes that matter most to clients' businesses.
Subscribers may access the full Daily Report article (https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2026/05/12/anticipating-ai-driven-rise-in-demand-alston--bird-invests-in-ip-bench/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=enl&utm_campaign=customalert_MyLawAlert&utm_content=20260512&utm_term=law&utm_campaigntype=Topic&utm_campaignentity=Intellectual+Property&user_id=516d7a1834b9b0a8049144f1&slreturn=20260512180206).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.alston.com/en/insights/news/2026/05/daily-report-ip-bench-expansion-meets-ai-demand
[Category: BizLaw/Legal]
