(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a whistleblower claim brought under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed where, in using the term 'whistleblower,' Congress did not intend to limit protections to those who disclose information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rather, the anti-retaliation provision also protects those who were fired after making internal disclosures of alleged unlawful activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other laws, rules, and regulations.

(United States Second Circuit) - Conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud are affirmed where over defendant's argument that disclaimers of extra-contract representations did not render salespeople's oral misrepresentations immaterial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's dismissal of claims under the False Claims Act by realtors against their former employer who made false statements about its compliance with FDA regulations regarding certain HIV drugs resulting in the receipt of billions of dollars from the federal government and alleging retaliation against the complaining realtor, holding that the realtors adequately pled a claim for retaliation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment for an apparel company in its trademark infringement action. A company that sold leather jackets branded ROGUE contended that a commercial brewery that sold ROGUE-branded beer had infringed its trademark by using the name on t‐shirts and hats. The Second Circuit held that the apparel company was not entitled to summary judgment, because the brewery was the senior user and the evidence did not show that it was precluded by laches.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted that they did not violate the Lanham Act by producing greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer who had posted a popular YouTube video known for its catchphrase Honey Badger Don't Care. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of several patents related to systems and methods for indexing information stored in wide access databases. The district court agreed with the defendant and held all asserted claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. section 101.

(United States First Circuit) - Denied both parties' appeals in a trademark lawsuit between two members of the rock band Boston. A member of the multi-platinum band sued the band's former guitarist for trademark infringement and breach of contract in a dispute over the wording of public statements about the guitarist's former role in the band. At trial, the jury rejected all of the plaintiff's claims and all of the defendant's counterclaims. Both sides appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted they did not violate the Lanham Act by selling greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(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.

THE dream of playing against the world’s best basketballers in the NBA fuels Jason Khattar’s passion for basketball.

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.

THE future of rugby at Manly looks bright judging by the performances of the mighty Seaforth Raiders under nines.

SATURDAY marks the start of another Sydney Shires season – and Warringah are gunning for the top four.

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) - In this case, plaintiff parole agent was disciplined by his employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, for conducting a purportedly unlawful search of a residence. After an administrative hearing, the discipline was upheld by defendant State Personnel Board. Denial of plaintiff's administrative mandamus petition seeking to overturn the Board's decision is reversed, where: 1) plaintiff was entitled to actual notice of the contents of the "Letter of Intent" within one year of the date of discovery, not constructive notice by mail as perfected by his employer; and 2) service by mail was untimely as it was received after the outer limit of the relevant notification period.

(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.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a lawful termination of a contract is not fatal to a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, because the focus of the claim is on the defendant's wrongful conduct that induces the termination of the contract, irrespective of whether the termination is lawful.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. section 552, dispute arising from requests for Notices of Seizure of Infringing Merchandise pursuant to 19 C.F.R. section 133.21(c), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and vacated in part where court properly held that plaintiff's requests fall within Exemption 4 but erred in finding that 19 C.F.R. section 103 fees had been invalidated.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit involving claims of indirect patent infringement and misappropriation of a trade secret: 1) the district court's denial of the defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity and noninfringement is reversed, where the jury lacked substantial evidence to find that another patent did not anticipate the claim; and 2) the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to the defendant on the plaintiff's trade secret claim is affirmed, where another patent publicly disclosed the alleged secret before the plaintiff communicated it to the defendant, and thus the jury's verdict of trade secret misappropriation was not supported by substantial evidence.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying plaintiffs' action seeking declaratory relief that it was not committing violations asserted by defendants in an earlier filed state law action, pending the resolution of the earlier parallel state lawsuit filed by defendants, where plaintiffs had every opportunity to procure a federal forum by removing defendants' first filed state suit rather than by bringing a separate federal action in an entirely separate federal district.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's orders purporting to clarify a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendants from using various materials and processes first developed by plaintiff, are vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked jurisdiction over this case when plaintiff initiated this lawsuit because plaintiff's complaint does not allege a sufficient controversy concerning inventorship, but instead concerns only ownership of the disputed patent.