(California Court of Appeal) - In a lawsuit to unwind a public water agency's acquisition of all of the stock of a retail water purveyor within its territory, the trial court's order refusing to unwind the transaction is affirmed where: 1) the streamlined procedures available for validating certain acts of public agencies, Code Civ. Proc.section 860 et seq., are inapplicable; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual finding that the purveyor did not become the agency's alter ego in this case; and 3) the agency did not violate article XVI, section 17.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a class action alleging the City unlawfully charged plaintiffs and others an unauthorized trash disposal fee, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant, on grounds that the City had already reimbursed the plaintiffs for all improper charges, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' individual claims are moot because a court could grant them no further relief beyond what they have already received; and 2) unlike other cases in which the 'pick off' exception has been applied, here, the injunctive relief provisions in the Chakhalyan v. City of Los Angeles stipulated settlement and judgment required the City to reimburse plaintiffs and other putative class members, and the City complied with this obligation before plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint naming them as parties; and thus 2) under these particular circumstances, the 'pick off' exception does not apply.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review brought by various entities challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)'s calculation of certain refunds arising out of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, the petition is: 1) granted in part where FERC acted arbitrarily or capriciously in allocating the refund only to net buyers and not to all market participants; and 2) denied in part as to the question of whether refunds should be netted hourly or a cross the entire refund period where FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its construction of tariffs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a case relating to a surcharge added to energy bills that the city claimed was a fee for the use of public services which taxpayers characterized as a tax imposed without voter approval the court affirmed the appellate decision reversing the trial court's grant of motion for judgment on the pleadings, but reversed the appellate court's order granting summary adjudication to the plaintiffs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the dismissal of a verified petition for writ of mandate complaining about a city's transfer of additional revenue from electric utility reserve fund accounts into the general fund without approval from the electorate because the action was subject to the 120 day statute of limitations of the Public Utilities Code and was not a tax increase.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversed a ruling that the City of Philadelphia unconstitutionally uses liens as a means to collect unpaid gas bills. In this lawsuit brought by a group of landlords, the City appealed from a ruling that it had violated the landlords' rights under the Due Process Clause by using a system of liens to collect unpaid gas bills. On appeal, the Third Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the City's procedures for collecting gas debts, and thus reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the landlords.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denied petitions for review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's final rule related to cooling water intake structures. The petitioners in this case, a number of environmental conservation groups and industry associations, sought judicial review of an EPA rule promulgated under the Clean Water Act establishing requirements for cooling water intake structures, which are used by power plants and manufacturing facilities to extract water and dissipate waste heat. Denying the petitions, the Second Circuit concluded that the final rule was sufficiently supported by the factual record and that the EPA gave adequate notice of its rulemaking.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a city's practice of annually transferring funds from a city-operated electric utility to the city's general fund did not run afoul of the California Constitution, which prohibits local governments from imposing any tax without voter approval. A citizen association brought this suit arguing that the city was, in effect, using utility rates to impose a tax without voter approval. Rejecting this contention, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a group of electrical power generators and related trade groups could not proceed with their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the New York Public Service Commission's Zero Emissions Credit program, which subsidizes qualifying nuclear power plants by creating state‐issued clean-energy credits. Affirmed a dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a municipality's water rate plan was subject to voter referendum, reversing the trial court. Further held that California voters' 1996 adoption of Proposition 218, concerning initiatives, did not abridge voters' right to challenge local resolutions and ordinances by referendum.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an amended opinion, revived a citizen group's claim that a city violated the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove numerous trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed a demurrer ruling, in relevant part.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed small-scale solar energy producers' claims that the California Public Utilities Commission's programs do not comply with federal requirements. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Tennessee Valley Authority is subject to suits challenging any of its commercial activities, just as if it were a private corporation supplying electricity. The TVA insisted that, as a government-owned corporation, it has sovereign immunity from all tort suits arising from its performance of so-called discretionary functions. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a cleanup and abatement order issued to a utility company, which was found to be a responsible party for pollution in San Diego Bay, nearby which it operated a power plant for many years. Affirmed the denial of the company's petition for writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued to prevent Defendant from violating city zoning laws to construct a solar energy project. Defendant claimed an exemption under Gov. Code, section 53091 and 53096. Court found that exemption does not apply and that there was no finding that no feasible alternative was available.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued Defendant for a slip and fall accident in the BART station on the theory that the train operator owed a heightened duty of care under Civil Code section 2100. The trial court dismissed the action on the grounds that Defendant had no liability for accidents that did not occur on the train. The appeals court agreed also holding that section 2100 does not apply to minor commonplace hazards in a train station.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's decision affirming a Department of Commerce ruling in the administrative review of an earlier anti-dumping order, the court held that no error occurred in the determination that a Chinese saw blade manufacturer was seeking to sell their products at less than fair market value in the United States.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's dismissal of two separate complaints challenging the countervailing duties on imported goods charged to an importer of aluminum extrusions from China because, regardless of the difference in rates between this importer's charge and a subsequent litigation into a similar matter, the importer was not a party to the other action, and they had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and could not claim the benefit of the rate awarded in separate litigation.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed finding of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that plaintiff had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing components of automated teller machines that infringed on certain patents. The court reasoned that the term “cheque standby unit” is a means-plus-function term and lacks corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the constitutionality of a recently enacted California statute that effectively bans the importation and sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn. Affirmed judgment on the pleadings against the Ivory Education Institute's lawsuit, which contended that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed whether Hong Kong- and Vietnam-based companies could be forced into arbitration in a software development dispute. The issue involved whether nonsignatories may be bound by an arbitration agreement. Denied the companies' request for a writ of mandamus.

(United States Third Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit, alleging trade-dress infringement and tortious interference, for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed were defendant had sufficient contacts with New Jersey.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a trademark dispute concerning a computer table, defendant did not engage in "reverse passing off" when it incorporated some of plaintiff's hardware into a sample table that it presented to potential purchasers.

(United States Second Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendants on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related false advertising is reversed in part pending response of the New York Court of Appeals to the following certified questions: 1) Does New York common law permit the owner of a famous mark or trade dress to assert property rights therein by virtue of the owner's prior use of the mark or dress in a foreign country?; and 2) If so, how famous must a foreign mark be to permit a foreign mark owner to bring a claim for unfair competition?

(California Court of Appeal) - In suit alleging dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising regarding a kitchen device known as the "Tartmaster," order granting directed verdict for defendants on trade dress claims, and finding for defendants on other claims are affirmed as there was no error or abuse of discretion.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit for infringement of patents directed to a design for protective goggles used by military establishments, law enforcement agencies, hunters and shooters, district court's denial of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in applying the Second Circuit's heightened standard of proof of likelihood of success on the merits, instead of the Federal Circuit standard for consideration of whether to impose such relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trade dress action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there is a genuine fact issue as to whether plaintiff's manner for presenting results in its urine test report was functional under the Lanham Act.

(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 First Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a decision to deny his petition for discovery under 28 USC section 1782, which allows a party t petition for discovery for use in a foreign proceeding. Plaintiff sought certain materials to be used in opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. The district court held that under Intel Corp v. Advanced Micro Devices, 542 US 241 that the material sought was irrelevant and would not be used by the EPO. The appellate court affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed finding of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that plaintiff had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing components of automated teller machines that infringed on certain patents. The court reasoned that the term “cheque standby unit” is a means-plus-function term and lacks corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Rembrandt filed numerous patent infringement actions against dozens of cable companies. After years of litigation, the district entered final judgment against Rembrandt for all claims. Cable company defendants filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court issued an order declaring the case exceptional and granting more than $51 million in fees. Rembrandt appealed the award. The Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional case determination, but vacated and remanded the fees award for further analysis of the connection between the fees and the plaintiff’s misconduct.

(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 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 Fifth Circuit) - The Fifth Circuit transferred a case back to the Federal Circuit, from which it had been transferred. The two circuits disagreed about which one was the proper forum for this appeal, which involved a company's claim that a competitor violated antitrust law by obtaining a patent through fraud.

(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.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendant city after twelve-year old plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision involving a speeding driver on a Brooklyn roadway, the trial court's entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of a special duty because the city's acts or omissions regarding the road were made in a proprietary capacity; 2) the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the jury's finding that the city's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; and 3) the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to a County Veterans Assistance Commission was affirmed in a case where their superintendent was banned from the administration building after learning that he'd had a PTSD incident in which he threatened a police officer and kicked out the windows of a squad car.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A local ordinance requiring residential property owners to get a license or hired a licensed contractor to make repairs didn't violate the commerce clause. It didn't distinguish between in and out of state owners and imposed no burden on interstate commerce.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - In an action challenging defendant Towson University's refusal to allow plaintiff to return to playing football after he suffered a near-death heat-stroke induced coma requiring a liver transplant and additional surgeries, the district court's judgment for plaintiff under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is reversed where plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to participate in defendant's football program under defendant's reasonably applied Return-to-Play Policy.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a class action suit against the National Football League (NFL), brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football, the District Court's judgment is affirmed where the District Court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.