We begin with two honorary Litigators of the Week from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom—IP litigation head Tony Sammi and Scott Musoff, who leads the complex litigation and trials group in New York.

Skadden has been doing internal, virtual, firm-wide culture-boosting activities, including a video contest where people were invited to submit a 30-second video featuring their "Tips for Working from Home." For a quick smile, check out Sammi's video here, and Musoff's here—we're talking some seriously cute kids and impressive dance moves. 

As for our other LOTW runners up…

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's Peter Armenio, Matthew Robson and William Adams won a rare First Amendment ruling on behalf of BlephEx in a patent fight over a dry-eye ophthalmological treatment. (Shout-out to Quinn's PR rep Eric Herman for the first sentence of his pitch—"There wasn't a dry eye in the house" when they won.) 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed an injunction by U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain of the Eastern District of Michigan, ruling that it was an abuse of discretion to restrain BlephEx's speech about a competitor's product and whether it infringed BlephEx's patent.

Squire Patton Boggs litigators Miriam Harwood, Ali Gursel, Zeynep Gunday, Bahar Charyyeva, Carlos Guzman, Hesel Toyjanova, and Tereza Psutkova successfully defended Turkmenistan before an ICSID tribunal, winning dismissal of a $76 million breach of contract claim brought by Lotus Holding Anonim Sirketi. In a rare move, the arbitrators tossed the case under Rule 41(5) —an expedited procedure for summary dismissal where the claims are shown to be "manifestly without legal merit." The tribunal also awarded Turkmenistan costs of nearly $1 million.

Kirkland & Ellis litigators Dan Donovan and Ragan Naresh racked up two more wins for Chesapeake Energy—in addition to one the week before—in a series of long-running disputes over the calculation of royalty payments for oil and gas leases. 

On April 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that pre- September 2005 claims against Chesapeake were time-barred. And on Monday, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Chesapeake, rejecting claims that the oil and gas producer had underpaid royalties. Prior cases making similar allegations (but with different counsel) had resulted in a $400 million jury verdict in West Virginia.

At Sullivan & Cromwell, John Hardiman and Ben Walker won the dismissal of claims against Major League Baseball by fantasy sports players following the Astros' sign-stealing scandal. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan ruled that the claims against the league and its teams were "simply too attenuated" to support the lawsuit. (For more, see this story by my colleague Tom McParland.)

Also at Sullivan & Cromwell, Jeffrey Scott and Matthew Porpora won dismissal with prejudice of a securities fraud class action against automotive seat maker Adient plc as well as its CFO and former CEO.

Sidley Austin partner David Carpenter prevailed before California's Second Appellate District in an area where the firm doesn't often tread—divorce law. He represented executive producer Randall Douthit in a fight over IP rights to the TV show "Hot Bench."

A team from Latham & Watkins led by Brook Roberts, John Wilson and Drew Gardiner scored a 7-0 win before California Supreme Court for Montrose Chemical in a decision that stands to benefit insurance policyholders of all stripes.

Montrose was sued for causing continuous environmental damage in the Los Angeles area between 1947 and 1982. California's high court held that Montrose is entitled to coverage under any relevant policy covering its continuous loss once it has exhausted directly underlying excess policies for the same policy period.

And finally, Erise IP's Adam Seitz and Michelle Marriott prevailed on behalf of The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc. and New Baby Tula at the International Trade Commission. The agency found all six of Ergo's and Tula's baby carrier products didn't infringe on LILLEbaby's patent, that the patent was invalid for anticipation and obviousness, and that the original inventors committed inequitable conduct in securing it by deceiving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.