(United States First Circuit) - In an infringement action to determine whether a Puerto Rico credit union infringed a bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, the District Court's finding of non-infringement and refusal to enjoin their use is: 1) reversed as to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, where the district court's determination of non-infringement was clearly erroneous; and 2) affirmed where the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a trademark case in which the lead singer of the rock group 'The Slants' chose this moniker in order to 'reclaim' the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons, and then sought federal registration of the mark 'THE SLANTS,' the en banc Federal Circuit's judgment overruling The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)'s denial of the application under the Lanham Act's disparagement clause, is affirmed where: 1) the disparagement clause applies to marks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group; and 2) the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming that a 1999 amendment to trademark statutes did not eliminate the plaintiff's requirement that they establish wilfulness to justify the award of defendant's profits in a trademark infringement case, but reversing the holding that the defendant's mark was not likely to cause confusion and remanding for inquiry into intent.

(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.

#architektura #architekt #dom #design

RT @antimega: At @GDSTeam we’re running a number of online events for Global Accessibility Awareness Day on 21 May - please join us! #accessibility #AccessibilityRegulations

FOUR years ago, Olivia Mitchell joined her first soccer team. Now the 12 year old is set to represent NSW in the national primary schools competition.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a whistleblower claim brought under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed where, in using the term 'whistleblower,' Congress did not intend to limit protections to those who disclose information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rather, the anti-retaliation provision also protects those who were fired after making internal disclosures of alleged unlawful activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other laws, rules, and regulations.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an issue of first impression involving the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to disgorge ill-gotten funds from so-called 'relief defendants', the district court's final judgment, arising in connection with the SEC's enforcement action for federal securities law violations arising out of a fraudulent investment scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over appellants as relief defendants to determine the legal and factual legitimacy of appellants' claim to the $5 million; and 2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the $5 million transfer as a loan was a sham.

(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.

THE dream of playing against the world’s best basketballers in the NBA fuels Jason Khattar’s passion for basketball.

(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal from denial of petition for writ of mandate that sought to overturn a decision of the Dental Board of California revoking petitioner's dental license, judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the penalty was authorized; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking petitioner's dental license following her pleading no contest to a felony count of Medi-Cal fraud.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in a workplace injury case where the worker sued the manufacturer of a car crusher and the company it leased it to rather than his employer claiming defective design because his evidence did not comply with Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a Houston law firm should be allowed to intervene in a lawsuit to protect its right to a contingent fee. The firm's client and the opposing party had allegedly conspired to cheat it out of its deserved attorney fee for work on a matter involving a foreign arbitral award. Remanded with directions to permit intervention and consider the law firm's claims on the merits.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed and remanded to enter summary adjudication for Plaintiff as to her retaliation claim and punitive damages, but denied discrimination and harassment claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed part of appeal and affirmed part. Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Defendant alleging wage and hour violations and a unfair competition law claim (UCL). Defendants sought to compel arbitration. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs individual claims, allowed the arbitrator to decide the class action claims, and denied the motion as to the UCL claim. The appeals court found that the motion that granted arbitration could not be appealed and found no error in the denial of arbitration for the UCL claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated. Partial enforcement to produce discovery documents in an equal protection claim vacated, where Plaintiffs did not have standing. There is no legally protected interest under which the board members of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority can assert a claim over disparate treatment compared to other municipalities regarding the passage of S.B. 2162.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising over a former, female firefighter's claims of harassment and discrimination against the City of Petaluma, the trial court's discovery orders are reversed where: 1) outside counsel's pure fact-finding role in the prelitigation investigation constituted legal services in anticipation of litigation and is privileged; and 2) defendant employer did not waive attorney-client privilege by asserting an avoidable consequences defense under the circumstances.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a judgment enforcement action, arising out of a default judgment for plaintiff in a contracts dispute over defendant's failure to pay for sheet metal, the trial court's entry of amended default judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) Donald Koh was improperly added as a judgment debtor on an alter ego theory under Motores de Mexicali v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.2d 172 (1958); but 2) South Gate Steel was properly added as a judgment debtor on a corporate successor theory.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the third chapter of Silicon Valley litigation spanning more than 14 years involving a microchip company and its successor, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, the judgment entered on plaintiff's cross-complaint against defendant is reversed where the court erred in submitting defendant's statute of limitations defense to the jury, as the cross-complaint was timely filed.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a a shareholder derivative action on behalf of a company, alleging that individual members of the company's board and affiliated entities improperly exploited their control of the corporation in entering into three separate self-dealing transactions, the district court's dismissal of the complaint, concluding that the dilution claim was properly derivative under Delaware law and that plaintiff failed to plead demand futility under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23.1(b)(3)(B), as to any of the claims, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's dilution claim was properly derivative, not direct; 2) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the non-class, derivative claims; and 3) plaintiff did not allege facts sufficient to excuse it from making a pre-suit demand.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review challenging an Objection Letter sent by the EPA regarding draft permits for water reclamation plants in El Monte and Pomona, California, the petition is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where neither 33 U.S.C. section 1369(b)(1)(E) nor (F) of the Clean Water Act provided the court with subject matter jurisdiction to review the Objection Letter.

(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 Third Circuit) - Concluding that a transfer by a non-debtor cannot be a 'fraudulent transfer' under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a complicated case involving Venezuela's nationalization of a gold mine owned by a Canadian company, the debt judgment subsequently issued by the World Bank, and the ensuing financial shuffle among companies related to the original transaction.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board which held certain patent submittals unpatentable and denied plaintiff the opportunity to amend. Patent submittals relates to a method of drilling assistance for dental work and, the Board ruled, were based on previous patents. Court of Appeals affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in part. Court of Appeals agreed that certain patent submittals were unpatentable, but vacated the denial of the motion to amend

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a subcontractor could not proceed with its lawsuit against a general contractor seeking payment for work on a project to build public schools. The subcontractor did not properly comply with the notice requirements of the Louisiana Public Works Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous. The motion was filed by the real parties in interest in a mandamus proceeding concerning permits for a real estate development project. Reversed a sanctions order.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services improperly calculated two Mississippi hospitals' Medicare reimbursements, specifically, so-called Disproportionate Share Hospital payments. Reversed the decision below and remanded to the agency.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a hospital waited too long to file an administrative appeal challenging a reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements. Affirmed that the filing was untimely.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to prevent the rebuilding of an equestrian facility following a fire by filing a petition to have the Coastal Commission to revoke the required coastal development permit on the grounds that the regulation used to make the decision was not interpreted correctly. The appeals court disagreed.

(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 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 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 Second Circuit) - In an international trademark action involving rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks, the district court's dismissal is vacated in part and affirmed in part where: 1) considerations of international comity precluded the district court from determining that the Russian Federation's assignment of trademark rights to plaintiff was invalid under Russian law and dismissing plaintiff's claims under section 32(1) of the Lanham Act for lack of standing; but 2) plaintiff's remaining claims are barred by res judicata and laches.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which plaintiff challenged, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code Section 25503(f)-(h), which forbids manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages from giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products, the district court's summary judgment to agency-defendant is reversed where plaintiff, a middleman involved in the advertising industry, had standing to challenge section 25503, because the Supreme Court's opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), requires heightened judicial scrutiny of content-based restrictions on non-misleading commercial speech regarding lawful products, rather than the intermediate scrutiny previously applied to section 25503 by the Ninth Circuit in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir.1986).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code section 25503(f)-(h), which prohibits alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Acting Director of the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is affirmed by an en banc court where: 1) thirty years ago, in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir. 1986), this Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to the same California and Professions Code provision; and 2) the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) did not modify the Central Hudson test that been applied in Actmedia.

(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.