Welcome to A&O Shearman's Need-To-Know Litigation Weekly, which analyzes notable U.S. decisions, orders and developments each week in areas of Securities Litigation, Government/Regulatory Enforcement, M&A and Corporate Governance, Antitrust Litigation and IP Litigation. This weekly newsletter is intended to supplement our various publications and thought leadership concerning these important substantive areas.
Securities Litigation
Southern District Of New York Dismisses Securities Act Claims Against Mobile Content Company For Lack Of Statutory Standing And For Failure To Adequately Allege Misrepresentations
On February 5, 2026, Judge Victor Marrero of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action asserting claims under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 against a company that operates mobile content platforms in China, certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of the company’s initial and secondary public offerings (the “IPO” and “SPO”). In re Qutoutiao, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2026 WL 309234 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2026).Read More
District Of Idaho Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Class Action Against Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
On February 3, 2026, Judge B. Lynn Winmill of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho granted a motion to dismiss a putative securities class fraud action asserting claims against a semiconductor company (the “Company”), and its CEO and CFO, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 1:25-cv-00191-BLW (D. Idaho Feb. 3, 2026). In granting defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court held that the amended complaint did not adequately plead falsity or scienter.Read More
Government/Regulatory Enforcement
Southern District Of New York Rules That AI-Generated Documents Prepared Without The Direction Of Counsel Were Not Protected By Privilege
On February 10, 2026, Judge Jed Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that certain AI-generated documents, created by an individual using an AI tool and then sent to that individual’s attorney in the context of ongoing litigation, were not protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. While necessarily fact-specific, the ruling highlights the discovery risks that can be created when using AI outside the specific guidance of an attorney.Read More
New York Attorney General Institutes Insider Trading Action Under Martin Act
On January 15, 2026, the New York Attorney General (“NYAG”) filed a complaint against a former life-sciences manufacturing CEO, alleging violations of New York’s Martin Act for trading material nonpublic information related to the manufacturing of Covid-19 vaccinations.Read More
M&A and Corporate Governance
Delaware Supreme Court Finds Attorneys’ Fee Award Excessive In Excessive Compensation Case
On January 30, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed a settlement resolving excess compensation claims against non-employee director defendants but reversed and modified the portion of the settlement allocated by the Court of Chancery to plaintiffs’ counsel fee award, reducing it from approximately $173 million to $71 million. In re Tesla, Inc. Dir. Comp. S’holder Litig., C.A. No. 2020-0477 (Del. Jan. 30, 2026). Defendants alleged that the fee award improperly took into account the intrinsic value of stock options returned to the company for cancellation and applied an excessive percentage to the valuation of the associated financial benefit.Read More
Delaware Court Of Chancery Denies Special Litigation Committee’s Motion To Terminate Due To Questions About Independence
On January 30, 2026, Chancellor Kathaleen St. J. McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants’ motion to strike but denied a motion to terminate a derivative action asserting fiduciary breach claims against certain directors following a Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) investigation. Grabski ex rel. Coinbase Global, Inc., v. Andreessen, et al., C.A. No. 2023-0464-KSJM (Del. Ch. Jan. 30, 2026). The Court found that plaintiff adequately alleged that one of the two SLC members had sufficient connections to one of the director defendants to raise a material question about his independence to be raised and thus declined to terminate the litigation based on the SLC’s recommendation.Read More
Antitrust Litigation
Grocery Store Chains Defeat Antitrust Claims Arising From Strike-Related No-Poach Agreement
On February 6, 2026, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted defendants’ motion to dismiss in Valarie Morgan v. The Kroger Co., et al., Civ. A. No. 25-cv-00837-GPG-CYC, dismissing a proposed class action antitrust lawsuit alleging the grocery giants violated antitrust law through a no-poach agreement entered into during a 2022 union strike. Notably, the Court observed that, leading up to the strike, defendants had discussed coordinating but could not agree on a Mutual Strike Assistance Agreement.Read More
Federal District Court Dismisses Foreign Parent Companies For Lack Of Jurisdiction In Polyurethane Price-Fixing Case
On January 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge W. Scott Hardy of the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa.) unsealed his January 8, 2026, opinion dismissing price-fixing claims against two foreign corporations for lack of personal jurisdiction. In re: Diisocyanates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:18-mc-01001 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2026). The court dismissed with prejudice antitrust claims against Covestro AG (“Covestro”) and Wanhua Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (“Wanhua”), in a multidistrict litigation alleging that defendants conspired to fix the price of polyurethane components sold in or shipped to the United States and/or its territories. The Court held it lacked both general and specific personal jurisdiction over Covestro and Wanhua, entities headquartered in Germany and China, respectively.Read More
Intellectual Property Litigation
Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Invalidates In-Store Product Locator Patents As Abstract Under § 101
On February 6, 2026, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, finding six patents owned by plaintiff invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Innovaport LLC v. Target Corp., No. 2024-1545 (C.A.F.C. Feb. 6, 2026). The Court held that all 55 asserted claims, relating to systems for providing in-store product-location information, were directed to abstract ideas and lacked an inventive concept.Read More
Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit Denies Appeal From A District Court Ordering An $8 Million Bond Under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions Of Patent Infringement Act
On December 18, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Longhorn IP and Katana Silicon Technologies’ interlocutory appeal from a district court order requiring an $8 million bond under Idaho’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC (C.A.F.C. Dec. 18, 2025).Read More