(NY Supreme Court) - 528503

(NY Supreme Court) - 527621

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that an insurance company timely removed an insurance coverage case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within the statutory 30-day time limit. The clock began to run only when the insurance company actually received the insured's complaint, not when its statutorily designated agent did.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company may not proceed with a negligence lawsuit against an adjuster for allegedly botching a claim for hurricane damage. The lawsuit was not filed within the statute of limitations.

(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 Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Trial court dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim on the grounds that the claimed agreement entered into with Defendant had not be approved by the Defendant’s governing board as required by New York Town Law, hence there was no valid and enforceable contract.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued employer, Defendant, for racial discrimination and retaliation. A jury found in favor of Plaintiff. Trial court granted Defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict on the grounds that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, but denied the motion with respect to the retaliation and discrimination claims. Appeals court found no error.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The court affirmed the dismissal of a suit claiming race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII in the firing of a deputy clerk of a city that was part of a group of layoffs intended to offset a budget shortfall. The plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact that her race was the motivating factor in her termination or that there was a causal connection between an EEOC complaint and the termination.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. In appealing an award of summary judgement for the defendants, plaintiff argues she proffered sufficient evidence to raise triable issues of fact in her sex discrimination case. Finding plaintiff’s arguments fail on the merits, the panel affirms.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiffs, employees of Defendant, signed an agreement with Defendant requiring binding arbitration of employment disputes after the complaint was filed. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration agreeing with Plaintiff that the arbitration agreement referred to future claims not the past ones brought by Plaintiff against Defendant. The appeals court disagreed stating that the agreement to arbitrate was clear and there was no qualifying language as to past or future events.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The district court dismissal of a suit for failure to exhaust remedies was vacated because the claims of discrimination had been exhausted before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The Defendant was an employee of Plaintiff and during the course of his employment he was required to sign a document that contained an arbitration agreement. He was not afforded the opportunity to read the document before signing and the document was not explained or provided in his first language, Chinese. After his employment with Plaintiff ended, he filed a complaint with the Labor Commissioner. Plaintiff sought to enforce the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court held that arbitration agreements are not categorically unconscionable as a waiver of the “Berman procedure” found in Labor Code 98, but an agreement to arbitrate must provide an accessible and affordable process. However, in this case the Court reversed the appeals court because the agreement had unusually high degree of procedural unconscionability and the Plaintiff was coerced and misled into accepting this agreement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the convictions and sentences of a husband and wife in connection with attempted tax evasion and filing false tax returns.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's dismissal with prejudice of complaint for personal injuries during jury trial, as a sanction for plaintiff's counsel's repeated violations of its orders excluding hearsay and opinion testimony, is affirmed where the trial court was within its discretion in granting the terminating sanction and did not err when it granted defendants' motions in limine because attorney is an officer of the court and he or she must respect and follow court orders, whether they are right or wrong, People v. Pigage (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1374, Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(b).

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a dispute over legal fees should not have been submitted to arbitration because the arbitration clause in the parties' agreement was unenforceable. A law firm recovered its outstanding fees through arbitration after it was disqualified from a case due to a conflict of interest. On review, however, the California Supreme Court held that the matter should never have been arbitrated because the law firm's failure to disclose a known conflict rendered its agreement with its client, including the arbitration clause, unenforceable as against public policy. The high court also held that the conflicts waiver the client signed was ineffective.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a client due to a conflict of interest. The attorney argued that there was no conflict, but the California Second Appellate District concluded otherwise. The panel stated that when an attorney represents more than one client, all of whom seek damages from a pool of money controlled by another party, the conflict is self-evident: there might not be enough money to satisfy each client's claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denying a petition to review an FCC order allowing the limitation of bidding credits available to 'designated entities' in the bidding process for electromagnetic spectrum licenses since the decision was not arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise contrary to the law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in the case of a criminal defendant awaiting trial on the charge of attempted murder who sought the Facebook posts of the victim directing the respondent superior court to vacate its order denying Facebook's motion to quash subpeonas duces tecum and vacate order allowing subpeona duces tecum and enter a new order granting the petitioner's motion because the Stored Communications Act prohibits electronic communications service providers from knowingly divulging the contents of a communication and no exception applied.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate denied in a case where The People of California filed suit to enjoin the plaintiff from noncompliance with the Unfair Competition law. Plaintiff sought the writ of mandate after its motion to remove the action from Riverside County was denied by the trial court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In consolidated petitions for review brought by various power companies of FERC determinations that various energy companies committed tariff violations in California during the summer of 2000, the FERC determinations are affirmed where: 1) it did not arbitrarily and capriciously, or abuse its discretion in finding that electric sellers Shell Energy North America, LP, MPS Merchant Services, Inc., and Illinova Corporation violated the Cal-ISO tariff and Market Monitoring and Information Protocol; 2) FERC's Summer Period determinations regarding APX, Inc., and BP EnergyCo. were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion; and 3) because FERC's remedial order is not final, the panel lacked appellate jurisdiction over it.

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying a petition for review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation seeking to vacate two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizing a company to construct a natural gas pipeline in New York and determining that the Department waived its authority to provide a water quality certification for the pipeline project under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing and remanding the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade case granting summary judgment to the government because the subject modular storage unit imports were improperly classified as mountings and fittings rather than as parts of unit furniture.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an in rem suit filed against a ship for cargo damage sustained in transit because liability for the damage was covered by the carrier's bill of lading, which included a forum selection clause requiring suit be brought in South Korea because although South Korean courts would not allow an in rem suit, the plaintiff could have brought an in personam suit and chose not to do so for strategic reasons and the foreign forum selection clause did not violate the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

(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 Sixth Circuit) - In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a case arising from defendant's use of the domain name www.audisport.com to sell goods and merchandise displaying Audi's name and trademarks, summary judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees to Audi on trademark, trade dress, and AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claims are affirmed where: 1) there was a likelihood of confusion for purposes of trademark infringement, and defenses to the claim including laches, consent, and fair use, failed; 2) trademark dilution was proven; 3) a finding that defendant violated the ACPA was proper; 4) injunctive relief was warranted; and 5) given his bad faith use of counterfeit marks, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a).

(United States Tenth Circuit) - In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation. (Amended opinion)

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation.

(United States First Circuit) - In Shell's suit against a former franchisee under the Petroleum Practices Marketing Act, district court's grant of Shell's motion for permanent injunction is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of a permanent injunction ordering an defendant to cease any use of Shell trademarks, trade dress, or color patterns, and to comply with the post-termination provisions of its franchise agreements with Shell are affirmed; 2) the portion of the injunction ordering and compelling defendant to allow Shell to continue in possession of the service station until the expiration of the lease in 2014 is vacated as Shell made no showing of irreparable harm that might justify an order giving it possession of the property for the full term of the lease; and 3) Shell's motion for summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims was properly granted.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In action in which plaintiff asserted counts of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the district court's ruling that the claims in suit are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention related to the process for distributing rivets is: 1) reversed in part, as to the judgment of invalidity on best mode grounds; 2) affirmed in part, that the patent was not abandoned; and 3) remanded for determination of the remaining issues.

(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 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 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 Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part where a jury found that defendant had infringed on plaintiff's patents and had awarded damages based on the entire market value rule. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the infringement judgment, but vacated the damages award stating that the entire market value rule could not be used in this case.

(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 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) - 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) - Vacated and remanded the Patent Board's prior ruling against plaintiff which had filed suit to challenge the defendant’s proposed patent. In vacating and remanding, the Appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s printed catalog was prior art and that the defendant’s proposed patent could have been based on information in that catalog and that the trial court had not properly considered the catalog in making its finding.

(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) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.

(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.