(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board which held certain patent submittals unpatentable and denied plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Patent submittals relates to a method of drilling assistance for dental work and, the Board ruled, were based on previous patents. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. Court of Appeals agreed that certain patent submittals were unpatentable, but vacated the denial of the motion to amend

(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) - 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) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent application covering the design of an athletic shoe bottom should not have been rejected. The applicant argued that the patent claim met the enablement and definiteness requirements even though it used a single two-dimensional plan-view drawing to disclose the shoe bottom design. Agreeing that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make comparisons for infringement purposes, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of the patent claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a company did not violate a nondisclosure agreement by including particular information in a patent application for a 3D printing process. Affirmed summary judgment against a breach-of-contract claim brought by the other party to the nondisclosure agreement, a distributor of specialty polymers.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a commercial dispute for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant companies, which lacked sufficient contacts with Illinois. The case involved an alleged failure to pay royalties to the owners of certain patent rights.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Postal Service was barred here from challenging a private company's patent for a method for processing mail. Because federal agencies do not fall within the statutory definition of a person, they are ineligible to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an election law action, concerning whether Steven Glickman, a candidate for the state senate, is eligible to run for that office, the Appellate Division's judgment that he was eligible is reversed where Glickman's 2014 registration to vote in Washington, D.C. precludes him as a matter of law from establishing the five years of continuous residency in New York required by the state constitution.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The majority of a merits panel affirmed a district court judgment declaring a Mississippi redistricting plan as violative of the Voting Rights Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded for dismissal. State child protective services agency employees were entitled to qualified immunity in a suit alleging constitutional violation in the removal of three children from their mother's custody under a temporary removal order.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A correctional facility was not entitled to qualified immunity in a putative class action suit by pretrial detainees that were denied running water and claimed Fourteenth Amendment violations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an class action challenging the NFL's ticketing practices during Super Bowl XLVIII (2014) under a provision of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. section 56:8-35.1, the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is affirmed in part and vacated in part where the named plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of constitutional standing required under Article III.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an brought by former student-athlete plaintiffs, alleging that defendant exploited their likenesses commercially by selling non-exclusive licenses permitting consumers to download photographs from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Photo Library for non-commercial use, the district court's order granting defendant's special motion to strike and dismissing plaintiffs' claims without leave to amend is affirmed where: 1) the federal Copyright Act preempts the plaintiffs' publicity-right claims and the derivative UCL claim; and 2) in light of that holding, plaintiffs' cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on their challenged claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought following the break up of plaintiff's relationship with a former boxing champion, alleging invasion of privacy (both public disclosure of private facts and false light portrayal), defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on defendant's social media postings about the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy and its relationship to the couple's separation and his comments during a radio interview concerning the extent to which plaintiff had undergone cosmetic surgery procedures, the trial court's denial of defendant's special motion to strike those causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is reversed as to with respect to plaintiff's claims for defamation and false light portrayal, as well as her cause of action for public disclosure of private facts based on defendant's comments about plaintiff's cosmetic surgery. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in the case of a student football player who took some hard hits and ended up diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because the coach was entitled to qualified immunity and there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a jury trail against the town.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal of a second amended complaint in a lawsuit alleging defamation and deceit related to parents' complaints about a baseball team coach because the grievance, filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, failed to satisfy the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that a man complaining that the NFL's policies relating to the sale of SuperBowl tickets violated New Jersey law lacked subject matter jurisdiction and deferring action on the merits of the appeal pending a decision by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on a petition for certification of questions of state law, retaining jurisdiction over the appeal pending resolution of the certification.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.

(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) - Held that a skier could not proceed to trial on her negligence claims alleging that, after hurting her knee, she was helped down the mountain by a ski patrol when the rescue sled in which she was riding went out of control and hit a tree. Affirmed summary judgment for the ski resort.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a child who suffered head injuries while playing in a youth water polo league stated a claim that USA Water Polo acted negligently and unlawfully by failing to implement concussion-management and return-to-play protocols. Reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action brought by her parent on her behalf.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the superior court's determination that a movie theater being constructed using a loan from the city government and receiving city grant funds was subject to California's prevailing wage laws as they apply to 'public works.'

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because the Contract Disputes Act did not provide jurisdiction in a case involving a contract with the Army to establish and operate supply chain during Iraq's reconstruction and that the Board lacked jurisdiction under its charter and partially dismissing because the decision was not made pursuant under the CDA, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff brought a qui tam action alleging that Defendant violated the False Claims Act in its billings to Medi-Cal. The trial court sustained a demurrer and entered a judgment of dismissal of the complaint. The appeals court held that Defendant did not violate any requirement under law as to its billings to Medi-Cal.