Close X

Attorney Spotlight

How does Eli Richardson's past work with the federal government inform his client interactions? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo


Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Patent Reform Continues: Major Changes to Rules Affecting Patent Litigation

Publications

December 1, 2015

Starting today, changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure take effect that will dramatically alter patent litigation.

Form 18 is Gone. The changes eliminate Rule 84 and the Appendix of Forms linked to that rule. Up until yesterday, Rule 84 and the bare-boned model patent infringement complaint at Form 18 arguably held patent owners to a remarkably low pleading standard. Today, Form 18 is gone and a patent infringement complaint (like all other complaints) "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"1 There is much speculation as to how the "plausibility" standard will be applied to patent infringement litigation.

Big Discovery Changes in Patent Litigation. Discovery is one of the most expensive stages of patent litigation. Both the scope and conduct of discovery have changed under the new rules. For example, the amendments to Rule 26 attempt to streamline discovery by keeping it "proportional" to five factors, such as "the burden or expense of the proposed discovery" and "the importance of the discovery in resolving issues in the litigation." However, other factors allow the court to consider litigants' disproportionate "relative access" and "resources," and it remains to be seen how courts will construe these phrases in patent suits brought by non-practicing entities. Importantly, gone from Rule 26 is the old "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" standard, taking with it nearly 70 years of precedent construing that phrase as the very definition of the scope of permissible discovery. These amendments are designed to "decrease the cost of resolving disputes without sacrificing fairness." The changes have caused several jurisdictions to rethink local patent rules and traditional patent discovery strategies. Chances are that litigants and their counsel will be facing new challenges in predicting the outcomes of discovery disputes and defining the scope of permissible discovery information in patent litigation.

Extending Responsibility to the Parties and their Counsel. The discovery amendments build upon the amendments to Rule 1. Until yesterday, Rule 1 required that the Federal Rules be "construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action and proceeding." With just a few simple word changes, the new version of Rule 1 applies not only to the court's construction and administration of the rules, but also to the parties' use of the rules. Specifically, the parties should engage in discussions to "discourage over-use, misuse, and abuse of procedural tools that increase cost and result in delay." The Committee emphasized "the importance of cooperation in reducing unnecessary costs in civil litigation." The changes to Rule 1 impose an express responsibility on the parties and counsel. What that responsibility may be and how the courts will utilize this change to encourage cooperation and reduce litigation costs remains unclear.

Much, Much, More. Today's amendments contain substantial revisions to Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 37 and 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure beyond just those discussed above.

The full Summary of the Report of the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure is available here. Our Intellectual Property & Technology attorneys are intimately familiar with today's amendments, and they have substantial experience in efficiently handling federal litigation. Should you have any questions about the content of this Alert, please contact one of the authors listed above or any member of our Intellectual Property & Technology team.


1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 570 (2007)). Presumably, federal courts will conclude that the abrogation of Rule 84 effectively overrules the Federal Circuit's decision in K-Tech Telecommunications, Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2013), holding that use of Form 18 "immunizes" a complaint from attack as to its sufficiency.

In Case You Missed It:

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.