Arbitrability Is for the Arbitrator to Decide
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.02.13
In U.S. ex rel. Beauchamp v. Academi Training Center, Inc. (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2013), in which C&M represented the defendant, the court, after dismissing both FCA claims a week earlier, stayed the relators' retaliation claims, despite their allegations that the arbitration provision in their independent contractor agreements were unconscionable and that arbitrability was for the court to decide. The court held that the parties had delegated the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator with "clear and unmistakable intent" by incorporating the AAA Commercial Rules into the agreements, a delegation which relators failed to challenge, thus leaving it to the arbitrator to decide whether other terms of the agreements made the arbitration provision unconscionable and unenforceable.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims. Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution. Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.14.25
Microplastics Update: Regulatory and Litigation Developments in 2025
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.13.25
