(United States Fifth Circuit) - Granted. The motion to transfer a lawsuit involving the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission to the Tenth Circuit was granted because appeals of some agency rulings must be filed in only one court of appeals, typically the DC Circuit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded. The trial court sustained the Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend to Plaintiff’s third amended complaint. The appellate court held that Plaintiff made a sufficient showing for leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to amend their complaint consistent with this opinion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The FBI's refusal to turn over materials relating to the investigation of a murder on state park land that would violate the personal privacy of third parties and would disclose the identity of a confidential source was proper.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was injured in a head-on traffic accident that he alleged was partially caused by a dangerous road condition. The jury found that a dangerous condition existed but it was not a reasonably foreseeable risk that this kind of incident would occur. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the judgment in favor of the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs are the parents of three girls who were killed by a speeding motorist while they crossed the street in a marked crosswalk. Plaintiff brought an action against the City of Santa Ana claiming that the crosswalk qualified as a dangerous condition on public property. The appeals court did not find a dangerous condition or any peculiar condition that would trigger an obligation by the City.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from a pre-election trial court ruling that held that certain initiates were invalid and that the County of San Bernardino was excused from the duty to prepare ballot titles and summaries for them.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(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 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 Ninth Circuit) - Reversed in part, affirmed in part. Plaintiffs have standing for a Freedom of Information Act claim because the removal of compliance and enforcement records from the USDA website harmed them in real-world ways, differently from the injuries sustained by other Americans.

Kindred Spirits Met When Japanese Noise Legend Merzbow Got Together In The Studio With Fellow Countryman Keiji Haino And Drummer Balazs Pandi For A New Recording On RareNoiseRecords

Holmeswood Transports The Carefree Euphoria Of The Saturday Night Fever Disco Era Into The Future Fueled With Electro-techno-dubstep Vibes Up To Planet Holmeswood

JES, The Voice That Melts The Heart Of The Dance Floor Steps Into Fall With A New Song "We Belong To The Night" And A Brand New Vibe!

LA Based Electro Duo Divine Astronaut Announce The Launch Of Their New Musical Act With A Teaser Video Of Their Upcoming Single Release ‘Undone’.

A Straight Talking Drum & Bass Sample Pack That Pushes The Envelope In DnB Tools

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeal's judgment that the Medical Board of California's seizure of data from the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) without a warrant or subpoena but supported by good cause in the course of investigating a patient's physician was not a violation of the patient's right to privacy because even if this would be an intrusion on a legally protected privacy interest, the Board's actions were justified.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court order decertifying a class action relating to an alleged aphrodisiac called 'Cobra Sexual Energy' because the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class on the basis of the plaintiff's inability to prove restitution damages through the full refund model because plaintiff's damages model matched his theory of liability and because his damages model was supportable on evidence that could be introduced on trial and whether plaintiff could provide damages to a reasonable certainty on the basis of his full refund model was a question of fact to be decided at trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing a conviction for dihydorcodeinone/Vicodin because the prosecution didn't establish that it was a controlled substance, but affirming other aspects of an appeal, including affirming the use of information relating to the Ident-A-Drug website because it came within the published exception to the hearsay rule and the challenged hearsay was not testimonial.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consumer protection class action, alleging that various defendants' prescription eye drop medications come with a bottle dropper tip that dispenses too much medication in one drop, thereby wasting medication and causing plaintiffs undue economic hardship, the district court's dismissal is reversed where plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury in fact to confer Article III standing under to bring their various state law claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's determination that patents relating to aspects of the production of an antibiotic compound were obvious implementations of disclosures made in other patents that would constitute nothing more than the routine way a skilled artisan would apply the patent's teachings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, the district court's judgment for plaintiff Bayer is reversed where it clearly erred in determining that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to create an oral disintegrating tablet version of an erectile dysfunction drug using specified sugar alcohols with the tablet formulated for immediate-release.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the denial of attorney fees and costs to a man who sued claiming that he developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome as the result of a flu vaccination because the Court of Federal Claims correctly concluded that there was no reasonable basis for the claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's rulings in the case of a patent infringement claim relating to cardiovascular drugs where the court held that the plaintiff had proven that the defense's sale of proposed generic drugs with their proposed labels would induce physicians to infringe, and holding that none of the patents were invalid for obviousness.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the conviction of a man on a number of charges involving misbranded drugs because the court erred in excluding evidence relating to the defendant's advice-of-counsel defense.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Returning once again after climbing and descending the appellate ladder several times, the court held that the defendant had not forfeited its preemption defense and that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act preempts state law remedies for an applicant's failure to comply with aspects of the Act, and affirming the dismissal of the state law claims.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeals determination that the manufacturer of a name brand drug whose labeling directs the warnings provided on its generic bioequivalent's packaging owes a duty of reasonable care to the consumers of the generic drug and that the liability for potential negligence doesn't automatically terminate upon transfer of the company's rights in the name brand drug to a successor manufacturer.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing and Remanding an order dismissing counts in an indictment charging three defendants involving the dispensing of misbranded drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act because the judge's analysis involved several out-of-place factual assumptions that led to an incorrect finding regarding the sufficiency of an indictment.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's finding of noninfringement and remanding to determine whether the on-sale bar applies in a case relating to an anti-coagulant drug because a different production method was distinguished from the patented method and a patent is invalid if the product was offered for sale and ready for patenting prior to the filing of the application.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the District Court's determination that a proposed generic nasal spray would not infringe the patents of a company manufacturing the Nasonex nasal product.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's judgment for the defense in a diversity action brought by doctors alleging claims arising from their assignment of patents to the company that it failed to develop into FDA-approved drugs because the jury instructions were not improper and the verdict wasn't against the clear weight of the evidence.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Partly affirming, partly vacating, and remanding the district court dismissal of a False Claims Act action brought against three pharmaceutical companies in a case involving off-label drug use and kickbacks to doctors because claims were substantially similar to those that had already been publicly disclosed, vacating to determine whether the situation qualified for the original source exception.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court decision holding that a putative class action suit that organic labeled baby formula included ingredients not permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act because their state law claims were preempted by the Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a Tax Court determination that royalties paid on technology license agreements should be treated as ordinary income rather than as capital gains in the case of a pharmaceutical scientist raking it in on liquisolid technologies hoping to avoid paying a significant tax bill.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of a case in which a class of purchasers of securities issued by a drug company that the investors said recklessly misled them about their target date for submitting an application to the Food and Drug Administration for a drug approval because the court did not err in finding that they had failed to state a claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the district court holding, after a bench trial, that the asserted claims of a patent relating to the treatment of schizophrenia with iloperidone administered based on the genotype of the patient were infringed and not invalid.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming that a chemical compound that mirrored a patented chemical compound was encompassed by the description that only portrayed one of the arrangements in the claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's conclusion that Monsanto and others failed to state a claim in a suit where they averred that Proposition 65's reliance on the International Agency for Research on Cancer's determinations about which chemicals cause cancer improperly granted a foreign entity authority over domestic affairs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a conviction for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in a case in which the government offered evidence that the defendant and co-conspirators abused their positions as healthcare providers by intentionally prescribing OxyContin for no legitimate medical purpose as part of a scheme to sell it as a street drug because the evidence was sufficient to support the jury findings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the judgment that Merck, initially defending its patent on Hepatitis C drugs against a competitor seeking to have them found invalid, who successfully counter-sued for infringement, had unclean hands regarding the patents and was properly barred from asserting its patents and awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's dismissal of an interference claim for lack of standing and remanding for further proceedings because the description of a method for removing hair using nanoparticles to damage hair follicles was a sufficient written description under the Patent Act because although the description only gave optical density rather than particles per ml, this was enough of a disclosure to convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed against the producer of several antiviral drugs used in the treatment of AIDS by an organization providing medical care to AIDS sufferers seeking to have patents declared invalid because the action failed to meet the requirements of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding of patents relating to boron-containing small molecules used to treat fungal infections, holding that all of the claims of a patent owned by a company were unpatentable for obviousness.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming in part and reversing in part the inter partes review decision of the US Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Bard holding claims for methods of distributing nitric oxide gas cylinders for pharmaceutical applications used in treating respiratory failure as unpatentable as obvious because, while the Board didn't err as to most of the rulings, it did as to one.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate in a case where a group of pharmaceutical companies had been sued by the District Attorney under California's Unfair Competition Law for allegations that they had engaged in a scheme to keep generic versions of a prescription drug off the market, but the suit was based on conduct outside of the county where the DA served and allowing them to proceed with the suit without written consent would permit the DA to usurp the Attorney General's statewide authority and impermissibly bind other DAs, precluding them from pursuing their own relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - The People appealed the order dismissing the complaint for a medical marijuana conviction. The Court reversed the dismissal. Defendant argued that the appeal was moot as a result of the passage of the California Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument because the Court concluded, the Act was not intended to be retroactive for this conviction. A reversal was required because the trial court abused its discretion in mistakenly dismissing the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this sentencing reduction for marijuana possession under Health and Safety Code section 11359 case, the 4th Appellate District court reversed the superior court’s order denying defendant’s request to reduce his felony marijuana conviction because of his conviction of four counts of attempted murder. The appellate court held that the conviction for attempted murder in the same case for the marijuana conviction did not render the defendant ineligible for resentencing under the Health and Safety Code.