Federal Circuit Panel Once Again Splits on Claim Construction
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.24.07
In Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp. (No. 2006-1260, April 12, 2007), a Federal Circuit panel offers a split decision regarding the proper construction of a single term in the claims. According to the dissent, the district court used a dictionary as the starting point when defining each disputed term. Therefore, the dissent argues that the district court’s method actually led them astray from a proper claim construction. The majority counters by simply noting that a proper de novo review prohibits the court from considering the logic or definitions used by the lower court to reach the correct construction. Rather, the majority explains, “[w]e review only the district court’s finished product, not its process” and the unorthodox methods used by the district court during the Markman hearing are legally irrelevant.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
