Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

PAINFUL DELIBERATIONS - A new wave of positive coronavirus cases across the country has thwarted plans to restart in-person jury trials in many jurisdictions, once again raising the prospect of the much-maligned remote jury trial becoming a necessity to keep dockets from clogging up. Meanwhile, for those locales that are still pushing ahead with in-person proceedings, a whole new set of challenges has been heaped upon what was already a logistical nightmare. In this week's Law.com Litigation Trendspotter column, we look at the high-stakes game of "Would You Rather?" that litigators, judges and court administrators are being forced to play as they try to make an impossible decision between pressing on with socially-distanced in-person trials or moving to entirely virtual proceedings.

FORTUNE FAVORS THE BOLD  - Try to stay home, wear a mask if you must go out, wash your hands, don't share your milkshake with strangers. In general, exercise extreme caution—except when it comes to strategic decision making. As Lizzy McLellan writes in this week's Law.com Barometer newsletter, smart firm leaders, recognizing that the pandemic is not going anywhere anytime soon, "have shifted to a marathon mindset," focusing on being opportunistic in making strategic pivots and long-term structural changes. In other words, they're not playing scared. "Nearly every recruiter and consultant I've spoken with since March has pointed to two categories of firms: the ones that are choosing to grow in a challenging environment, and the ones that are struggling because of the challenging environment," McLellan writes, adding that the latter firms "may think they're being safe and prudent, but they run the risk of losing good talent." To receive the Law.com Barometer directly to your inbox each week, click here.

STAY IN YOUR LANE - "Jaguar vs. Porsche" could one day be an Oscar-winning film (especially if we're talking about a real jaguar), but for now it's just a patent infringement case in Delaware District Court. Still interesting though! Latham & Watkins and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell sued Porsche on Thursday on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover Ltd. The complaint claims that Porsche's Cayenne models directly infringe the plaintiff's patented "Terrain Response" technologies. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendants. The case is 1:20-cv-01554, Jaguar Land Rover Limited v. Porsche Cars North America Inc. et al. Stay up on the latest litigation with the new Law.com Radar.