(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment for an apparel company in its trademark infringement action. A company that sold leather jackets branded ROGUE contended that a commercial brewery that sold ROGUE-branded beer had infringed its trademark by using the name on t‐shirts and hats. The Second Circuit held that the apparel company was not entitled to summary judgment, because the brewery was the senior user and the evidence did not show that it was precluded by laches.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted that they did not violate the Lanham Act by producing greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer who had posted a popular YouTube video known for its catchphrase Honey Badger Don't Care. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(United States First Circuit) - Denied both parties' appeals in a trademark lawsuit between two members of the rock band Boston. A member of the multi-platinum band sued the band's former guitarist for trademark infringement and breach of contract in a dispute over the wording of public statements about the guitarist's former role in the band. At trial, the jury rejected all of the plaintiff's claims and all of the defendant's counterclaims. Both sides appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision cancelling registration of plaintiff’s trademark for a green tea product due to the likelihood of confusion with defendant’s registered mark.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a German company in a trademark infringement action did not violate due process. The German company, which operated an English-language website, argued that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the United States. Disagreeing, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was constitutional.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted they did not violate the Lanham Act by selling greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a corporation was in contempt of a consent judgment because its outside counsel failed to respond to a motion alleging a violation of the judgment and to appear at a hearing on the motion, in a trademark infringement case.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an education services company could not proceed with its Lanham Act lawsuit against a school district for using its marks in the course of operating a summer reading program. Affirmed summary judgment for the school district, finding that the allegedly infringing marks created no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the First Amendment's commercial speech protections entitled a company to operate automotive service centers under the name "Tire Engineers," even though a state board that licenses engineers objected to the use of the profession's occupational title. Reversed and rendered summary judgment in favor of the company, in this declaratory judgment action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Remanded for recalculation of an attorney fee award in a trademark infringement action, in which one nonprofit organization accused another of stealing its logo. Both organizations endorse political candidates.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute over ownership of a trademark in a restaurant name, affirmed a bench trial decision in part and reversed it in part.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Addressed a damages issue in a case where a jury found that a musical instrument retailer infringed another retailer's trademark. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion amend the judgment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of cellphone cases did not hold a valid trademark in the term CAPSULE. Affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this trademark infringement lawsuit.

(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a statutory provision that prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. An entrepreneur who founded a new clothing line filed a First Amendment challenge when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register his desired trademark FUCT. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him and invalidated a provision of the Lanham Act. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which five other justices joined.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Gatorade's use of the slogan "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" was fair use protected by the Lantham Act in a suit alleging trademark violations filed by SportsFuel.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. Finding no clear error in the district court’s determination that Defendant’s trademark infringement was willful, the award of gross profits was proper. However, the question of attorney’s fees and pre-judgement interest is remanded for further proceedings.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Revived a maritime tort lawsuit against manufacturers of turbines and other equipment for three Navy ships. Family members of two deceased Navy veterans claimed that the manufacturer violated a duty to warn sailors of the health risks faced from asbestos fibers released into the air. The U.S. Supreme Court found merit in the plaintiffs' contentions. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a 6-3 majority, clarifying the circumstances in which a duty to warn exists in the maritime context.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a business engaged in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings was not a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. A homeowner claimed that the business violated certain statutory requirements in carrying out a foreclosure on behalf of a lender. Rejecting this argument, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Act was inapplicable to this nonjudicial foreclosure proceeding. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, clarifying the statute's definition of debt collector.

(United States Supreme Court) - Remanded a class action settlement case for the courts below to address the named plaintiffs' standing to sue, in light of Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. __ (2016). Issued a per curiam opinion, in this consumer suit against an internet company.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the National Park Service lacked authority to regulate boating on Alaska's Nation River. A moose hunter contended that the Park Service could not ban him from using a hovercraft on a portion of the river that crossed a national preserve. Ruling in his favor, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that while the Park Service normally may establish rules for boating on waters within national parks, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act creates an Alaska-specific exception. Justice Kagan delivered the unanimous opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed a question concerning a method of serving civil process on a foreign state. The Republic of Sudan argued that a mailing must be sent directly to the foreign minister's office in the foreign state, not to the foreign state's U.S. embassy. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Sudan's argument in an 8-1 decision. Justice Alito delivered the Court's opinion, in this case arising out of the 2000 bombing of the Navy vessel USS Cole.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a securities law case, held that someone who is directed by a boss to make a misstatement may potentially be liable for it. A senior-level investment banker who allegedly made knowingly false statements in emails to prospective investors claimed that his boss had told him what to say, so he could not be held responsible. Disagreeing, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that his conduct could fall within the scope of federal securities laws, upholding a ruling of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of a 6-2 Court (Justice Kavanaugh not participating).

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a death row inmate's execution by lethal injection would not subject him to constitutionally impermissible suffering, even if his unusual health issues meant that he would experience particularly excruciating pain. The inmate contended that his medical condition meant Missouri's legal injection protocol was unconstitutional as applied to him. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that he failed to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test. Justice Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that parties do not consent to classwide arbitration if the agreement is ambiguous on that point. An employer sought to block an employee from proceeding with a proposed class action lawsuit and instead force his claims into individual arbitration. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that the employer had the right to do this, because the arbitration agreement was ambiguous about the availability of classwide arbitration. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that consumers could proceed with an antitrust lawsuit alleging that Apple Inc. used monopolistic power to overcharge for iPhone apps. Apple contended that the lawsuit was barred because the consumers were not "direct purchasers" within the meaning of the Illinois Brick case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple's argument in a 5-4 decision, on review of a dismissal ruling. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the majority opinion, joined by the four liberal justices.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private citizen cannot sue one State in the courts of another. Overruled Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which had held that a State may grant or deny its sister States sovereign immunity as it chooses. The plaintiff here sought to bring a tort suit against a California state agency in Nevada state court. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution barred the suit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified when federal law will preempt a state law claim that a drug manufacturer failed to warn consumers of a drug's risks. Held that this preemption question is one for a judge to decide, not a jury. Also spelled out the "clear evidence" standard that applies in this context. Justice Breyer, joined by five justices, delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion in this product liability lawsuit against a drugmaker.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of civil procedure, held that a third-party counterclaim defendant -- that is, a party brought into a lawsuit through a counterclaim filed by the original defendant -- may not remove a class-action counterclaim from state court to federal court. Justice Thomas, joined by the four liberal justices, delivered the opinion of a 5-4 Court in this debt collection lawsuit.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of administrative law, held that where the Social Security Administration Appeals Council has dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ on the merits, that dismissal qualifies as a final administrative decision so as to allow judicial review. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Upheld an Indiana law relating to the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers. The Seventh Circuit had struck down the law, which altered the manner in which abortion providers may dispose of fetal remains; for instance, the law prevents incineration of fetal remains along with surgical byproducts. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in a per curiam decision that the law passes rational basis review. Only two justices dissented.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that probable cause to make an arrest defeats a claim that the arrest was in retaliation for protected speech. A man arrested at a winter sports festival claimed that the reason was his speech. However, because there was probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct, his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim failed as a matter of law. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion. There were several concurring and dissenting opinions.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional and thus is subject to forfeiture if tardily asserted. The issue involved whether an employer waited too long to dispute that a discrimination plaintiff filed a proper complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before initiating suit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the circumstances in which a court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for attempting to collect a debt that a bankruptcy discharge order has immunized from collection. Held that there should be "no fair ground of doubt" that the order barred the creditor's conduct. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically -- and retroactively -- reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Concluded that the new policy must be vacated. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the 7-1 Court (Justice Kavanaugh did not participate).

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed whether a convicted criminal's period of supervised release is tolled -- in effect, paused -- during pretrial detention for a new criminal offense. Held that tolling occurs if certain conditions are met. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Postal Service was barred here from challenging a private company's patent for a method for processing mail. Because federal agencies do not fall within the statutory definition of a person, they are ineligible to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed the question of when burglary qualifies as a predicate offense for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. More specifically, the narrow issue concerned what it means to remain in a building or structure with intent to commit a crime. Ultimately, held that violation of Michigan's third-degree home-invasion statute qualified as a predicate offense. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Addressed what law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf, holding that California wage-and-hour law was inapplicable to a worker on an offshore drilling platform. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, if federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a case alleging racial gerrymandering, held that the Virginia House of Delegates lacked standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia's 2010 redistricting plan. As a single chamber of a bicameral legislature, the House had no standing to appeal a three-judge federal district court's redistricting ruling separately from the State of which it is a part. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court, joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch.

(United States Supreme Court) - On an issue relating to the U.S. Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause, upheld the dual-sovereignty doctrine. A man who was convicted by Alabama for possessing a firearm as a felon insisted that it would be double jeopardy to prosecute him for the same conduct under federal felon-in-possession law. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, declining to overrule the longstanding dual-sovereignty doctrine. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the 7-2 Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the federal Atomic Energy Act did not preempt a Virginia law prohibiting uranium mining. While six justices agreed that the state ban on uranium mining was not preempted, they divided on broader questions concerning statutory interpretation and preemption doctrine, and thus were unable to agree on the rationale for the decision. Justice Gorsuch delivered a plurality opinion, and several justices concurred in the judgment only.