(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived environmental organizations' lawsuit seeking to compel the U.S. Forest Service to ban hunters' use of lead ammunition, which is ingested by scavenger wildlife species and causes lead poisoning. Held that the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was justiciable. Reversed a dismissal and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the U.S. Forest Service's approval of a project to address spreading pine-beetle infestation in certain at-risk forest lands. Rejected environmental groups' claims concerning the impact on a particular species of owl. Affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a yacht buyer may not proceed with a contract and warranty lawsuit against a yacht manufacturer. Affirmed a judgment after a bench trial, in a dispute involving the exhaust system's compliance with European Union regulatory requirements.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case involving the Deepwater Horizon Class Action Settlement Agreement, held that the district court erred in analyzing certain business claims for economic loss. The issue had to do with the process of matching revenues and expenses. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, and vacating the district court's judgment after jury trial in favor of Oracle on its copyright claims against a provider of third party support, affirming judgments of infringement, but reversing judgment as to California and Nevada statutes that weren't violated by use of automated tools, reducing damages accordingly, and vacating the permanent injunction and reversing the award of attorney's fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that Google's use of Oracle's Java Standard Edition platform programming interface in its Android operating system was fair use and decisions denying Oracle's motion for judgment as a matter of law and remanding for a determination of damages.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this copyright law case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs, professional photographers, alleged that defendants removed copyright information metadata from their photographs in violation of 17 USC section 1202(b)(1)-(3). Section 1202 requires defendants to have known the prohibited act would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Plaintiffs were unable to offer evidence to satisfy this requirement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated claims for violation of California law copyrights possessed in certain musical performance sound recordings. The plaintiff copyright holders argued that their decision to remaster their pre-1972 analog sound recordings onto digital formats did not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law. Agreeing with the plaintiffs that their state law copyright claims were not preempted, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant radio broadcasters.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reinstated musical recording owners' claims that radio broadcasters violated their state law copyrights in pre-1972 analog sound recordings that were later remastered onto digital formats. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the broadcasters and also reversed the striking of the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed sanctions imposed against a defense attorney for filing a frivolous motion seeking prevailing party attorney fees. Held that it was baseless for the attorney to argue that his client was the prevailing party under the Copyright Act, in a case where his client had agreed to pay a monetary settlement to resolve a copyright infringement claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a prevailing party only the six categories of costs specified in the general costs statute. A software manufacturer that obtained an infringement judgment against another company argued that the Act's reference to "full costs" meant that a court could award it costs beyond the six categories. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument for additional costs in an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tech company's copyright infringement claims against a competitor. Held that claim preclusion did not bar the company from asserting copyright infringement claims that had accrued after its earlier patent infringement suit against the competitor.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. This appeal presents a question of the scope of statutory damages recoverable under the Copyright Act of 1976. The Act permits the recovery, instead of actual damages, of an award of statutory damages for all infringements of one work. The question is what constitutes “one work” for the purposes of the statute. The appeals court found error in the trial court’s determination that 33 illustrations constituted “one work” and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed. Concluding the musical works at issue were not works made for hire, the panel reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendant.

More Ozzy TV- Arctic Monkeys 'Four Out Of Five' Video, Muse Concert Film Preview, Cliff Burton Documentary, Sevendust, Free Volbeat Show and more

All of today's top pop music news stories

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied the federal government's petition for mandamus to stop a lawsuit alleging that the government is ignoring the dangers of climate change. This lawsuit was brought by a number of children and young adults who accuse federal officials of violating their due process rights by failing to take action to address climate change. Having previously denied the government's first mandamus petition, the panel concluded that no new circumstances justify this second mandamus petition and the case is currently set for trial.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge to the construction of a natural gas pipeline across a religious organization's land. A Roman Catholic religious order brought suit to prevent the pipeline from being erected across its land, claiming that this would be contrary to its deeply held religious beliefs regarding its obligations in caring for the Earth as God's creation. However, the Third Circuit held that RFRA cannot be used to circumvent the prescribed review procedure for challenging pipeline projects, under which an objecting party must first seek rehearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which the religious order had not done.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated federal agency decisions approving construction of a natural gas pipeline through a national forest. Several environmental groups challenged the Bureau of Land Management's and U.S. Forest Service's rulings allowing the pipeline to be built. On a petition for review, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the environmental groups that the federal agencies failed to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the National Forest Management Act, and therefore the appeals court vacated and remanded to the agencies for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Rejected challenges to a natural gas pipeline project but remanded on one issue. Local governments and an environmental organization argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a proposed interstate pipeline expansion, but the Third Circuit rejected this argument. However, on a separate issue, the panel remanded to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with instructions to reconsider the petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a company surveying the ocean floor was properly apportioned 75 percent of the liability for an accident in which its underwater sonar device struck an offshore drilling rig's mooring line. The remaining 25 percent of the liability was allocated to the operator of the chartered vessel that was pulling the sonar device. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by individuals and associations located in Mexico that relied on the fishing industry as a primary source of income, citing noncompliance with certain procedures ordered by the district court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, held that a detrimentally impacted seafood business's monetary award under a court supervised settlement program was not properly calculated. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that it could not be decided on summary judgment whether interests in several oil and gas drilling projects qualified as securities, as the Securities and Exchange Commission insisted they were. The SEC brought this civil enforcement action against several companies that sold the interests to investors without first registering them as securities. Reversed a summary judgment ruling and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an energy company could not proceed with its claim that Illinois environmental regulators lacked jurisdiction over its handling of hazardous‐waste acid that it transported into the state. Affirmed a dismissal based on claim and issue preclusion, among other doctrines.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that energy companies emerging from bankruptcy did not have to pay certain creditors a contractual make-whole amount, even though the companies were now solvent due to a rise in commodity prices. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an industry challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. A number of industry trade groups argued that the California regulations designed to reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions violate the Commerce Clause or other parts of the federal constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.