(United States First Circuit) - The district court's preliminary injunction that restrained defendant, a former employee of plaintiff, from doing business with certain customers to whom he had sold products and services while in plaintiff's employ, is affirmed, where: 1) the identity of the party making initial contact is just one factor among many that the trial court should consider in drawing the line between solicitation and acceptance; 2) the evidence of record is adequate to underpin the lower court's determinations that defendant violated the non-solicitation covenant and that plaintiff is therefore likely to succeed on the merits; and 3) the district court narrowly tailored the preliminary injunction with respect to non-disclosure, enjoining only the use of information contained in defendant's notes.

(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 Federal Circuit) - The district court's decision finding defendant in contempt of its 2001 order adopting the parties' Settlement Agreement that plaintiff would be the sole owner of three U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent application, is reversed and the injunction is vacated, where none of challenged conduct in developing and selling the pressure exchanger violates any provision of the 2001 Order.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Ruling of the International Trade Commission that respondent-intervenor uPI violated the Consent Order as to the imports known as "formerly accused products" is affirmed, the modified penalty is affirmed, and the ruling of no violation as to the post-Consent Order products is reversed, where: 1) substantial evidence does not support the Commission's conclusion that uPI's post-Consent Order products were independently developed; and 2) the United States sale or importation of downstream products, which incorporate uPI's formerly accused upstream products and infringe the '190 patent, constitutes a violation of the Consent Order's knowingly aiding or abetting provision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Award of attorney fees to defendant in an underlying action for misappropriation of trade secret by seeking to hire away plaintiff's employees, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's findings are free of procedural error; 2) the finding of plaintiff's bad faith is amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor, which they are entitled to do under California state law; and 3) defendant prevailed when plaintiff dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a trademark secrets and employment case arising out of the formation of defendant uPI Semiconductors by employees of plaintiff Richtek, the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is reversed where the trial court improperly took judicial notice of the substantive allegations contained in two 2007 court complaints filed in Taiwan to resolve factual disputes in the case.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a case involves trade secrets relating to opaque polymers, which are hollow spheres used as paint additives for interior and exterior paints to increase the paint's opacity, the International Trade Commission's (ITC) decision, imposing default judgment sanctions for spoliation of evidence and entering a limited exclusion order against plaintiff, is affirmed where the Commission did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment as a sanction for plaintiff's spoliation of evidence and further did not abuse its discretion in entering the limited exclusion order.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit for misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment under New York law, the district court's judgment is affirmed as it relates to defendant's liability but deferred pending the resolution of two questions certified to the New York Court of Appeals.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of no liability in a trade secret misappropriation case where a jury found that a competitor did not steal Raytheon's trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. Raytheon appealed but the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the company's JMOL and new-trial motions, and also affirmed denial of the competitor's motion for attorney fees.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the competitor on the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and common law conversion claim, in relevant part.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a defendant was not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, because the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice meant no one had prevailed here. Affirmed the denial of fees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment against the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and civilian law conversion claim, in relevant part.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

ONE of the world’s most dangerous waterway pests — the red-eared slider turtle — has been caught in a shock discovery on the Central Coast.

Police were armed with barbecue tongs this week at Wyoming Caravan Park in a bid to tackle the issue of domestic violence.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reverse and remand. Defendant advanced the theory that its insurance policy did not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because they are not “accidents”. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, insurance company, stating that the intentional decision to drive while intoxicated meant the collision was not an accident. The appeals court held that there was nothing in Texas law that would construe the term “accident” in the manner put forth by the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Plaintiff contended that Defendant was strictly liable for an alleged automobile defect that caused injury. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant stating that Plaintiff had failed to establish Defendant acquired successor liability for the alleged defect.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate is denied. Remanded to consider restitution. Los Angeles County filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas for a natural gas leak that continued for months and caused damage to residents. The criminal charges were resolved by a plea agreement, where a no contest plea was entered to the charge of failure to immediately report gas leak. Plaintiffs sought to set aside plea agreement and seek restitution under the California Constitution. The appeals court held that victims do not have a right to appeal a criminal case judgment, but they do have a right to restitution. However, restitution is only available for crimes where there is an actual conviction.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed appeal court ruling. The parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement following a tort action. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant, counsel for the injured party in the tort action, breached the settlement agreement by making public statements. Defendant claimed he was not bound by the agreement, but only recommended his clients sign it. California Supreme Court made a factual finding that the Defendant intended to be bound by the settlement agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Distict court’s summary judgment that deceased BSNF employee was not acting within the scope of his employment when driving to work affirmed. Deceased was a BNSF railroad employee, but in court’s judgment no jury could reasonably find BSNF negligent in any way, so the question of work status need not be addressed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability for an assault that injured him in the Defendant's parking lot. The trial court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of showing foreseeability of violent criminal assaults. Therefore, Defendant did not have a legal duty to implement additional security measures to prevent possible third-party conduct.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated. Plaintiff, the heir of an employee who was killed in a work place accident, filed a complaint alleging that the employer did not have workers compensation insurance. The employer filed a demurrer and sought adjudication with the Workers Compensation Board. The trial court stayed the civil case to allow the WCAB to decide the issue. The Appeals court held that when a civil action and a workers’ compensation proceeding are concurrently pending, the tribunal first assuming jurisdiction should have exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court erred by staying the civil case and the WCAB erred by proceeding without deference to the trial court. Order staying civil case is vacated and WCAB proceedings stayed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant, Cosby, raped her in 1982. Defendant responded by claiming Plaintiff was lying in several press releases. Plaintiff filed suit for defamation. Cosby moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied Cosby's motion to strike and the appeals court held that none of Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the anti-SLAPP statute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denied District Attorney’s writ of mandate to declare Senate Bill No. 1391 unconstitutional. Juvenile offender, T.D., shot and killed someone when he was 14. The DA filed charges against T.D. directly as an adult. While the case was pending, Proposition 57 was passed to eliminate the DA’s ability to charge minors 14 or younger as adults. Later, SB No. 1391 was passed that prohibited transfers of 14 -15 year-olds to criminal court. The Appeals court found that SB No. 1391 was not unconstitutional and that it was consistent with the intent of Prop 57.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed judgment on the verdict and remand for new trial. Plaintiff brought a personal injury action against Defendant for injuries suffered in a bus accident. The jury found for Plaintiff but awarded minimal damages on the belief from an expert testimony that future surgery would not be required. The court awarded Defendant costs and attorney fees under CCP 998. Plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the expert testimony exceeded the scope of permissible impeachment. The appeals court agreed and ordered the trial court to vacate its order on the post-trial motions.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(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) - Reversed the dismissal of a shareholder class action against Toshiba Corp. filed by investors who alleged securities fraud. The district court dismissed their claims on jurisdictional grounds and, on appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied principles regarding extraterritorial applicability of U.S. securities laws set forth in Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs and reversed and remanded with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to amend their shareholder complaint against the Japanese firm to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment ordering forfeiture to the United States of seven ancient Cypriot coins and eight ancient Chinese coins. A numismatist organization that opposed import restrictions on ancient coins argued that the forfeiture order imposed in connection with international rules on ownership of cultural property was improper. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected each of the organization's contentions of error.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that a Switzerland-based financial firm could proceed with a tax refund claim. The firm sought a $38 million refund under a U.S.-Swiss treaty that deals with the tax on dividends paid by U.S. corporations and received by foreign shareholders. Reversed the district court's ruling that the refund claim raised a nonjusticiable political question.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an order issued by an arbitrator in the Philippines was not an arbitral award entitled to enforcement under a United Nations convention on recognition of foreign arbitral awards, based on the particular circumstances here. Reversed and remanded, in this case involving a fishing vessel crew member's personal injury claim.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment against Defendant in the Senior courts of England and Wales. The issue on appeal was the admissibility of a certain document. The appeals court determined that the document was rightly admitted by the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded for new trial. The district court: (1) violated a previous decision instructing it not to send Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act claims to trial, (2) abused its discretion by precluding two of defendant’s witnesses from testifying.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(California Court of Appeal) - The trial court's order granting plaintiff's motion for attorney fees incurred in a prior appeal is affirmed, where: 1) the order granting plaintiff's motion for attorney fees is directly appealable under the collateral order doctrine; and 2) the trial court did not err by awarding attorney fees against defendant because substantial evidence supported a finding that defendant stepped into the shoes of its predecessors the parties to the credit applications that included the attorney fees provision on which the award of attorney fees was based.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action brought on behalf of plaintiff and other participants in defendant-employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan alleging that defendant-employer breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a substantial loss to the plan, judgment for defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly concluded that defendant-employer breached its duty of procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to causation; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court then failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing defendant-employer's liability.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action concerning a property lease and a purported joint venture agreement entered into between a son and his father, the now-deceased former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development corporation, seeking damages for the son's use and occupancy of the property and a judgment declaring that the lease and joint venture agreement were void, the District Court's rulings denying the son's discovery requests and granting summary judgment to corporate-plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) the lease was void as a gift or act of corporate waste; and 2) the parol evidence rule applies in this case and the integration clause in the lease retains its preclusive effect, thus the purported joint venture agreement is unenforceable.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors by reporting millions of dollars in revenue that were never realized, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendant-corporate officers is vacated where: 1) Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act provided the SEC with a cause of action not only against Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers who did not file the required certifications, but also against CEOs and CFOs who certified false or misleading statements; and 2) the disgorgement remedy authorized under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applied regardless of whether a restatement was caused by the personal misconduct of an issuer's CEO and CFO or by other issuer misconduct.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action for breach of an indemnity agreement, the trial court's grant of summary judgment requiring defendant to pay plaintiff approximately $6.07 million pursuant to the indemnity agreement is affirmed where although the signatory did not have actual authority to execute the indemnity agreement on defendant's behalf, in these circumstances, the person's signature binds defendant pursuant to former Corporations Code section 17157(d) (now section 17703.01(d)), provided that the other party to the agreement does not have actual knowledge of the person's lack of authority to execute the agreement on behalf of defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against two insurance companies, brought by a plaintiff-insured who was denied coverage under a D&O policy because he was convicted of securities fraud, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer and dismissing the complaint is: 1) affirmed in part where the AXIS demurrer was properly sustained because AXIS was a stranger to the HCC policy and owed no duties connected with it; but 2) reversed in part where the HCC demurrer was improperly sustained because when a policy expressly provides coverage for litigation expenses on appeal, an exclusion requiring repayment to the insurer upon a 'final determination' of the insured's culpability applies only after the insured's direct appeals have been exhausted.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.