Koda Killorn is shaping up as a real threat ahead of the NSW Grommet State Titles at his home break of Maroubra Beach.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the People's appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(1), challenging the trial court's order to set aside certain counts of charges against defendant for using false statements in the offer or sale of a security, Corp. Code sections 25401, 25540(b), after defendant persuaded an acquaintance to invest in a real estate development opportunity in Idaho in return for a promissory note, the terms of which were amended and extended several times but never realized, the trial court's order is affirmed where the promissory notes offered for the investment in the real estate development scheme were not securities within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Law.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction and sentence of a former Puerto Rico superior court judge for receiving bribes and participating in a conspiracy to bribe an agent of an organization receiving federal funds. On appeal, the former judge cited a number of alleged trial and sentencing errors, including the upholding of a witness's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the First Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction for Medicaid theft, in a case where a billing manager embezzled payments that belonged to medical practice.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a prevailing party only the six categories of costs specified in the general costs statute. A software manufacturer that obtained an infringement judgment against another company argued that the Act's reference to "full costs" meant that a court could award it costs beyond the six categories. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument for additional costs in an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh.

WHAT happens in Vegas typically stays in Vegas, but Carissa Uno will take everything she learned at a gymnastics tournament in Sin City to inspire her to greater heights.

DAYYAN Neve will look to repeat the dose when he competes in the fourth event of the Bacardi Surf Tour this Sunday at Dee Why Beach.

(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment dismissing this qui tam action alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of kickbacks, bribes, or rebates designed to induce referrals of Medicare and Medicaid business, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's former general counsel, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated his ethical obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime; and 2) the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a copyright and trade secret infringement suit brought by a provider of credit union software against the developer of a competing credit union software, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court did not abuse its broad discretion in refusing to compel additional discovery and plaintiff can point to no errors of fact or law in the court's denial of its employees access to defendant's software; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in barring the use of an expert's report because the report failed to comply with the requirements of Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 26(a)(2)(B); 3) plaintiff was not entitled to take the deposition of defendant's expert witness because defendant designated him as a non-testifying expert; 4) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose a sanction on defendant because plaintiff was not left without a remedy for any harm caused by the third party's spoliation; 5) defendant was entitled to summary judgment on the merits on the copyright infringement claims because plaintiff has not produced any direct evidence of copying and indirect evidence of copying was not sufficient to create a fact question as to whether copying occurred; and 6) district court correctly held that plaintiff's end user product was not a trade secret because plaintiff did not take reasonable steps to maintain its secrecy.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.

(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its former employee for unauthorized access and misuse of a computer system and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Connecticut laws, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where the foreign defendant's use of a computer in Connecticut satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of both the Connecticut long-arm statute and due process.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on patent infringement claims involving a wire tier device that is used to bale recyclables or solid waste is: 1) reversed in part and remanded with respect to claims 1-4 of the ’877 patent, where the district court erred in it construction of the terms "each" and "a respective one"; but 2) affirmed on claim 5 of the ’877 patent and all of the asserted claims of the ’992 patent; and 3) affirmed on the denial of plaintiff's motion for additional discovery pursuant to and the dismissal of plaintiff's Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act cause of action.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court precludes defendant from recovering the interest paid on the borrowed funds that are deposited with the court in lieu of an appeal bond, and a recent amendment of rule 8.278, which expressly allows recovery of interest in this situation, and which became effective during the pendency of this appeal, should not be given retroactive application.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In a claim of negligence for secondary exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff failed to establish sufficient cause. The panel held that in the context of asbestos claims, the substantial-factor test requires “demonstrating that the injured person had substantial exposure to the relevant asbestos for a substantial period of time.”

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a civil RICO case, held that a Chilean national may sue another Chilean national in the United States, because extraterritoriality issues did not bar the suit. The case involved allegations of fraudulent asset transfers from a New York bank account. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff in an action alleging intentional interference with a License Agreement, interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, breach of a confidentiality agreement, and breach of confidence, arising out of defendant Actelion's notice to plaintiff that following its acquisition of defendant CoTherix, defendant Co-Therix's would discontinue development of plaintiff's drug for "business and commercial reasons," is affirmed, where: 1) defendant Actelion, by virtue of its ownership interest, is not automatically immune from tortious interference with the License Agreement; 2) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of wrongful interference with contract and properly charged with considering whether defendants "used unlawful means to interfere with the License Agreement;" and 3) the manager's privilege does not exempt a manager from liability when he or she tortiously interferes with a contract or relationship between third parties.

(United States First Circuit) - In this shareholder derivate suit, plaintiff Sarnacki asserts Nevada state-law claim against Smith & Wesson's officers and directors, including breach of fiduciary duties, wastes of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. In reaction to earlier and parallel cases, Smith & Wesson's Board formed a Special Litigation Committee (SLC) to investigate and determine the viability of any of these claims and to make a recommendation to the Board whether to pursue any of these claims. The SLC recommended against filing any claims. The district court granted defendant's motion for summary dismissal on the basis of the SLC recommendation, and after limited discovery. The judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the Board has met its burden as to proving the independence of the SLC; 2) the SLC's investigation was reasonable and in good faith; and 3) the district court's decision to limit discovery was not an abuse of the court's discretion, as it was adequate to aid its review.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a policyholder who successfully sued a life insurance company was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. Reversed the fee award, in this diversity jurisdiction case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute, revived an industrial plant's claim that the insurer should have provided coverage when broken metal brackets resulted in a shutdown of the entire facility. Reversed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and Remanded. The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal and reversed a District Court order in the case of the dismissal of a tenured professor. The professor's guilty plea to felony charges relating to the dismissal were serious cause sufficient to support his firing.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued employer, Defendant, for racial discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff. Trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but denied the motion with respect to the retaliation and discrimination claims. Appeals court found no error.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed part of appeal and affirmed part. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging wage and hour violations and a unfair competition law claim (UCL). Defendants sought to compel arbitration. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs individual claims, allowed the arbitrator to decide the class action claims, and denied the motion as to the UCL claim. The appeals court found that the motion that granted arbitration could not be appealed and found no error in the denial of arbitration for the UCL claim.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(United States DC Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a nonprofit organization's lawsuit seeking President Donald Trump's income tax records. Held that no one can use a Freedom of Information Act request to demand to inspect another's tax records. The case involved a FOIA request filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center shortly after the 2016 election.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a taxpayer could not proceed with a lawsuit seeking to invalidate a voter-approved special property tax imposed by Los Angeles County. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a challenge to the conditions placed on the privilege of admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Local Rule 701, the District Court's grant of the Government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where Rule 701 violates neither the Constitution nor federal law.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a putative class action challenging on First Amendment grounds New York's rules, regulations, and statutes prohibiting non‐attorneys from investing in law firms, alleging that the infusions of additional capital which the regulations now prevent would enable plaintiffs to improve the quality of the legal services that they offer and at the same time to reduce their fees, expanding their ability to serve needy clients, the district court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiffs fail to allege the infringement of any cognizable constitutional right.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a law firm was disqualified from representing a party in an unfair business practices case due to a conflict of interest. Reversed the denial of a disqualification motion.