(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming in part and reversing in part a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sketchers from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute Adidas's Stan Smith trade dress and three stripe mark, affirming that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction and reversing the portion issuing an injunction as to the Stan Smith trade dress, but reversing the portion relating to the three stripe mark because Adidas failed to establish the irreparable harm element of this particular claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the manufacturer of a coffeemaker infringed the unregistered trade dress of a competitor's widely lauded product by mimicking the overall appearance. Affirmed a jury verdict.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that patents relating to systems for performing marine seismic surveying were unpatentable because they made no error justifying the disturbance of their obviousness decisions.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a district court order denying a motion for attorney fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit with prejudice because attorney fees are only available in exceptional circumstances and the court decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. WesternGeco owns a patent for a system to survey the ocean floor and they believed that a competing system owned by ION infringed on their patent. WesternGeco sued. The jury found ION liable and awarded WesternGeco damages including lost profit damages. ION argued that the lost profit damages was not allowed and the appellate court agreed with them. The US Supreme Court disagreed and reversed and remanded the decision stating that lost profits for a domestic patent was permissible under the Patent Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, arising after two manufacturers of ambient light sensors shared technical and financial information during negotiations for a possible merger, the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a jury verdict for plaintiff as follows: 1) defendant's liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure was affirmed; 2) several patent infringement claims were reversed and several were affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards were vacated and remanded for further consideration.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part a patent infringement final judgment. Polara, a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems, filed suit against its competitor Campbell and prevailed after a trial on certain infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Campbell's JMOL motion but vacated the enhanced damages award and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Remanded with instructions to dismiss, in a case where the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that certain claims were not time-barred under 35 USC section 314.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(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.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury case, alleging that plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical disabilities from in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor caused by a defective fuel hose, the trial court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert witnesses from testifying at trial is affirmed where the experts did not rely on generally accepted principles and methodologies to reach their conclusions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendants ABC News, a hospital, and attending physician for the nonconsensual filming and subsequent broadcast of decedent's treatment and death at the hospital, the Appellative Division's order is modified and affirmed where: 1) the broadcasting of the footage as part of a documentary series about medical trauma was not so extreme and outrageous as to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; but 2) plaintiffs have stated a cause of action against the hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a contracts action arising from a dispute over the auction sale of a syndicated loan, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where the lack of a written sales agreement and plaintiffs' failure to submit a timely cash deposit were not conditions precedent to the formation of the parties' contract and do not render their agreement unenforceable.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The denial of money damages to a member of the Texas Mexican Mafia in a case alleging constitutional and civil rights violations arising from a drug bust was affirmed.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirmed. Juvenile defendant was placed on probation for felony burglary. As a condition of his parole, he was required to submit to warrantless searches of his electronic devices, even though they were not used in connection with the burglaries. The appeals court struck the electronics search condition. The Supreme Court agreed stating the search of electronic devices was overbroad.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated in part. Defendant was convicted of multiple lewd acts upon a child. Defendant argued that the evidence did not support part of the conviction and his sentence is unconstitutional. The appeals court agreed that the evidence supported only two lewd acts on each victim and that his sentence was unconstitutionally excessive.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A conservation and reclamation district regulating groundwater was not subject to the one person, one vote principle of the Equal Protection Clause because they are a special purpose unit of the government. Its apportionment scheme had a rational basis.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A magistrate's dual role as generator and administrator of court fees creates a conflict of interest when they set bail.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was an investigator employed by the California State Lottery. He sued Defendant alleging retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied the motion. The appeals court agreed finding Plaintiff had established his complaint arose from a protected activity and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging NCAA rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, the district court's judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the NCAA's rules are not exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, and are subject to the Rule of Reason; and 2) the district court's permanent injunction ordering the NCAA to allow members schools to pay students up to $5,000 a year in deferred compensation was erroneous.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for a writ of review of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, challenging its jurisdiction over a claim by a former professional basketball player in the NBA from 1981 through 1984 for cumulative injuries, the Board's decision is affirmed where: 1) Labor Code section 5954 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1069 require verification of a petition to review a decision of the Appeals Board; 2) California has a legitimate interest in an industrial injury when the applicant was employed by a California corporation and participated in other games and practices in California for non-California NBA teams, during the period of exposure causing cumulative injury; and 3) subjecting petitioner to California workers' compensation law is reasonable and not a denial of due process.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a quarter horse trainer's petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, challenged a license suspension and fine imposed upon him by the California Horse Racing Board after finding he violated the Board's regulations by racing horses medicated with a drug that the Board had temporarily suspended from authorized use, the petition is granted where the Board's successive temporary suspensions of the drug violated the provisions of the rule permitting temporary suspension of an authorized drug and thus exceeded the Board's authority.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action by an African American seeking to establish disparate-impact discrimination in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)'s policy of excluding anyone with a felony conviction from coaching at NCAA-certified youth athletic tournaments, the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where even if disparate-impact claims were recognizable under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiff had not shown that an equally effective, less discriminatory alternative theory to the NCAA's felon-exclusion policy existed, as was required under the three-step analysis for disparate-impact claims set forth in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989).

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving helmets worn by professional football players the manufacturers of the helmets were being sued by multiple parties, so the manufacturer sued their insurers for indemnity. The insurers wanted to continue in extended discovery and demanded logs of documents withheld during prior discovery, but the court held that a stay of discover is appropriate, while the manufacturer must also provide privilege logs, reversing the trial court's decision as to the stay and affirming its order as to the privilege logs.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed the dismissal of a suit filed by a student athlete volleyball player against a community college after she was injured during a tournament game when she dove into the sand and her knee struck a rock. The community college argued that it was protected by an immunity covering field trips and excursions, as set forth in section 55220 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations. Rejecting this argument, the Fourth Appellate District held that this provision did not apply to an injury suffered by a member of a visiting team during an intercollegiate athletic event. The panel therefore reversed an order granting a demurrer and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed on summary judgment that a YMCA was not liable for negligence in the death of a man who died of sudden cardiac arrest after playing soccer on a YMCA-owned field that was rented to a nonmember league. Held that the YMCA had no common-law duty of care to provide hands-on usage of an automatic external defibrillator on the facts here.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived claims brought by several African-American college basketball players that their head coach had engaged in race-based discrimination and retaliation. The players claimed that the coach reduced their playing time, afforded them fewer opportunities, punished them more severely and otherwise favored their teammates of other races. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part on their claims under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California law.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

(United States Supreme Court) - In an insurance class action arising in the context of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) authorization of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with private carriers for federal employees' health insurance, 5 U.S.C. section 8902(a) and (d), the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, preventing federal employee insurance carries from seeking subrogation and reimbursement if there is a conflicting state law, is reversed where, because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions plainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' section 8902(m)(1), they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a False Claims Act suit brought the U.S. Government against Sprint Communications, the district court's order denying appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) motion to intervene as of right is affirmed where: 1) although his appeal is not moot, he did not have a significantly protectable interest in the government's False Claims Act suit; and 2) his prior filing of a related, but jurisdictionally barred, qui tam action did not entitle him to any award under the False Claims Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a breach of contract claim brought against the Government, the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, because the Government has no contractual obligation to reimburse plaintiff's pension withdrawal liability costs that were incurred pursuant to the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. section 1381, et seq.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a reverse validation action under Code Civ. Proc. section 863 challenging the propriety of school districts' use of lease-leaseback agreements in contracting for construction or improvement of school facilities, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer is: 1) reversed in part as to the conflict of interest claim where plaintiff has stated a claim of conflict of interest against the construction company-defendant sufficient to withstand a demurrer; but 2) otherwise affirmed.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought under a Puerto Rico 'Law 458', which prohibits government instrumentalities and public corporations from awarding bids or contracts to persons (including juridical persons) who have been convicted of 'crimes that constitute fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds listed in section 928b of this title,' P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3, section 928, the district court's judgment remanding the case to the Commonwealth Puerto Rico Court of First Instance is affirmed where the forum selection clauses at issue were enforceable, and that the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(2)(A) therefore could not be satisfied.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a government contracts action claiming underpayment for outpatient medical services provided for current and former military service members, the Federal Claims Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is reversed where plaintiffs are not barred by bringing a breach of contract claim by a release included in the contract the government is accused of breaching.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.