(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In litigation over competing lines of high-end cookware in which the appellees claimed trade dress infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices, the district court's judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed, where: 1) the appellant's failure to move pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeited its challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert or in admitting his testimony and survey; 3) the appellant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law; 4) the infringement was not innocent or unintentional, and the unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes covered it; and 5) the trial judge properly treated the award of profits as damages subject to trebling under state statute.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming in part and reversing in part a preliminary injunction prohibiting Sketchers from selling shoes that allegedly infringe and dilute Adidas's Stan Smith trade dress and three stripe mark, affirming that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction and reversing the portion issuing an injunction as to the Stan Smith trade dress, but reversing the portion relating to the three stripe mark because Adidas failed to establish the irreparable harm element of this particular claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant in a suit for trademark infringement relating to foam earplugs in a specific bright green color used by the plaintiffs in their earplugs because the district court's conclusion that the green color mark was functional and therefore not protectable as trade dress was in error. The existence or nonexistence of alternative designs is probative of functionality or nonfunctionality and a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the color was functional remained.

(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) - Granted plaintiff's motion to remand. In light of the US Supreme Court decision, SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S.Ct. 1348, plaintiff moved to remand to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for further proceedings. The Federal Circuit reasoned that the decision in SAS established a process where the petitioner gets to define the proceeding and that all challenges raised in the petitions are to receive review by the Board.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated a patent noninfringement judgment based on an erroneous construction of the patent's language. The sole issue on appeal concerned a patent pertaining to energy efficient lighting apparatuses and what precisely was meant by the words attachment surface. Because the district court had adopted an erroneous construction of those words, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings.

(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 the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that some, but not all, claims in a telecommunications patent were unpatentable as obvious. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determinations made in an review.

(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) - Conviction for first-degree burglary and assault is affirmed where: 1) defendant's right to a trial by jury was not impaired by the trial court's failure to adhere to the statutory procedural protection for excusing potential jurors for hardship; 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding defendant's third-party culpability evidence as not probative and speculative; and 3) the prosecutor's reference to defendant's gender in summation was inexcusable and irrelevant, but defense counsel's failure to object was not ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a trusts and estates action, the Appellate Divisions' order is affirmed where defendant, the wife of decedent, founder of the Benihana restaurant chain, failed to raise a triable issue of fact that two irrevocable releases signed by decedent were signed as a result of fraud or other wrongful conduct.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendants ABC News, a hospital, and attending physician for the nonconsensual filming and subsequent broadcast of decedent's treatment and death at the hospital, the Appellative Division's order is modified and affirmed where: 1) the broadcasting of the footage as part of a documentary series about medical trauma was not so extreme and outrageous as to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; but 2) plaintiffs have stated a cause of action against the hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality.

(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 consolidated family law appeal, the court overruled its decision in Alison D. v. Virginia M., 77 N.Y.2d 651 (1991), and held that an unmarried partner who lacks a biological or adoptive connection to subject children has standing to seek visitation and custody under Domestic Relations Law section 70 by showing, clearly and convincingly, that the parties agreed to conceive a child and raise the child together.

(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) - Conviction for multiple robberies is reversed and remanded. The Court held that a lineup's suggestiveness should not turn solely on whether a defendant's distinctive feature, here dreadlocks, figured prominently in a witness's prior description to police but can be considered as one factor when a court determines the suggestiveness of a lineup.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree murder is affirmed where defendant's trial counsel did not commit ineffective assistance of counsel in pursuing a misidentification defense while not advancing an inconsistent justification defense, after defendant decided on the strategy and denied that he was the person depicted shooting the victim on a surveillance video recording.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for coercion in the first-degree relating to defendant's harassment of his ex-girlfriend, both while still living at her apartment and from jail, is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to preserve his argument that the court committed Apprendi error; and 2) defendant's sought jury instruction for second-degree coercion as a lesser-included offense was not warranted.

(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) - Vacated and remanded. Convictions for using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence were remanded for resentencing after previous 7th Circuit opinions and the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Davis found the term "crime of violence" to be unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. Defendant prison guards were entitled to qualified immunity in a case claiming cruel and unusual punishment where a PTSD-suffering prisoner asked guards not to stand behind him but they continued to do so. It did not violate clearly established constitutional law for non-medical staff to refuse to provide what amounts to medical accommodation that hadn't been ordered by the medical staff.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A tenured teacher who waged an extended campaign against students who did not give him an award and sued the school when the Board of Trustees took action against him lost his appeal of the grant of summary judgment to the school. The First Amendment didn't protect his firing for intentionally causing harm to students and failing to follow the dean's instructions.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. In a case involving people attempting to adopt Indian children and challenges to the Indian Child Welfare Act, the plaintiffs had standing but were not entitled to summary judgment. Judgment was rendered to the defendant US government, its agencies, and Indian tribes.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Dismissed. An appeal of police officers on the issue of qualified immunity relating to an arrest of parents following their child's death was dismissed because the Fifth Amendment coerced confession claim was inseparable from questions of fact identified by the district court.

(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) - Reversed. Prison officials sued for Eighth Amendment violations over their refusal to provide gender reassignment surgery to a prisoner were entitled to qualified immunity because caselaw did not clearly put them on notice their action was unconstitutional.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of a defense motion for summary judgement in an Eighth Amendment claim brought by a prisoner against prison nurses he says were deliberately indifferent to his needs as a sickle cell disease sufferer was proper because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against one nurse and the record wouldn't support a jury finding on his claim against the other.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for a writ of review of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, challenging its jurisdiction over a claim by a former professional basketball player in the NBA from 1981 through 1984 for cumulative injuries, the Board's decision is affirmed where: 1) Labor Code section 5954 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1069 require verification of a petition to review a decision of the Appeals Board; 2) California has a legitimate interest in an industrial injury when the applicant was employed by a California corporation and participated in other games and practices in California for non-California NBA teams, during the period of exposure causing cumulative injury; and 3) subjecting petitioner to California workers' compensation law is reasonable and not a denial of due process.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an injury action arising from a skiing accident, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant ski resort is affirmed where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of the link between his injuries and the assumed negligence of the defendant.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action brought under diversity jurisdiction by the LA Lakers against an insurer when it denied coverage and declined to defend them in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the court agreed that the lawsuit was an invasion of privacy suit that was specifically excluded from coverage.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the denial of preliminary injunctive relief in an action brought by a high school coach who alleged First Amendment violations when he was suspended for kneeling and praying in the middle of a football field immediately after football games because while coaching he was a public employee, not a private citizen.

(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) - Affirmed the denial of a former professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits as former defensive tackle, Larry Tripplett, sought workers' compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his playing career. He argued that he was eligible for benefits in California, but the Fourth Appellate District disagreed, finding that he was ineligible because he was outside the state when he signed his employment contract with the Indianapolis Colts.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(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 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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a reverse validation action under Code Civ. Proc. section 863 challenging the propriety of school districts' use of lease-leaseback agreements in contracting for construction or improvement of school facilities, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer is: 1) reversed in part as to the conflict of interest claim where plaintiff has stated a claim of conflict of interest against the construction company-defendant sufficient to withstand a demurrer; but 2) otherwise affirmed.