LJN Newsletters

As artificial intelligence continues its rapid march through the legal industry, law firms are facing a new kind of strategic imperative. No longer is the question whether to use AI — but rather how to do so responsibly, effectively, and competitively.

Easement By Prescription Claim Upheld; Easement By Necessity Claim DismissedEasement By Necessity to Obtain Access to Crawl SpaceImplied Easement Based on Pre-Existing UseConstructive Trust Over Half Interest In PropertyAdverse Possession of Beachfront Land

The Circuit split caused by MTE can and should be fixed by the Fifth and Seventh Circuits when the appropriate appeal reaches them. MTE reflects the more current analysis. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court will be able to resolve the split any time soon.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 23 revived a competitor’s antitrust counterclaims against rival real estate data provider CoStar Group Inc.

In brand protection, as in bridge engineering, the strength of brand differentiation (trademark distinctiveness) depends on the integrity of each supporting cable. When one snaps, the question is not only whether you can fix that component, but also whether the whole structure will hold together long enough for the repair crew to arrive.

Many law firms are fixated on insuring they choose the right service provider. Granted the right partner is important, however it’s not the service provider you select; it’s how that service provider is managed that determines success.

In Ex parte Michalek, the PTAB evaluated an invention involving medical health technology and artificial intelligence. While this case involved medical health technology, the implicated issues inform patent strategies for AI enabled inventions across all industries.

On May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court endorsed the “fraudulent inducement” theory of wire fraud in Kousisis v. United States, departing from its recent trend of narrowing the scope of broadly worded criminal statutes, including the wire fraud statute. This decision appears to allow the government to obtain a conviction even where the defendant did not intend to cause economic harm to their counterparty, so long as the defendant made material false statements in order to obtain property from another.