What were the most fascinating big business cases of 2014? We chose eight that grabbed our attention. Many involved new technologies. Advances in science, engineering and design have altered nearly every aspect of our lives, sometimes with stunning speed. But the law moves slowly. Courts are asked to apply legal principles that are decades, if not centuries, old to fact patterns that never existed when these laws arose. Does a radical model for delivering broadcast television violate copyright law? Can computer software be patented? What should sophisticated investors be told about newfangled financial instruments devised by Wall Street?

At the same time, most big, important cases revisit age-old legal issues. How do you prove fraud, and what should be done about it? When does an investor have an unfair trading advantage? How much should the government police the financial markets? And who is at fault when devastating industrial accidents happen? These cases didn't settle all of these questions. In some instances,they may have raised more issues than they answered. But that's how the law works: It evolves, sometimes in fits and starts.

As usual, the lawyering in each case interested us as much as the underlying facts. Randy Mastro of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher took a flash-and-spitfire approach to the Chevron-Ecuador dispute with great results. On the other end of the spectrum, appellate advocate Paul Clement of Bancroft couldn't be more low-key, or more effective, for television broadcasters in their campaign to defeat a disruptive new entrant called Aereo. David Boies, a perennial player in high-stakes litigation, showed up in an unlikely case last year, winning a crucial ruling for investors. But sometimes even armies of top legal talent can't secure a win, as BP has learned in the Deepwater Horizon litigation.