(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the district court's finding that defendant did not face ineffective assistance of counsel where his attorney failed to raise a significant and obvious issue on appeal of his conviction for money laundering and fraudulent investment crimes. The issue would likely have resulted in a reversal of his money laundering conviction and the Fourth Circuit remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed an investment firm founder's sentence for tax evasion. After pleading guilty, the firm founder was sentenced to prison and also ordered to pay restitution and a $10 million fine. On appeal, he challenged the fine, which was far higher than the amount recommended in his plea agreement. However, the Second Circuit saw no reason to overturn his sentence in any respect.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction and sentence of a former Puerto Rico superior court judge for receiving bribes and participating in a conspiracy to bribe an agent of an organization receiving federal funds. On appeal, the former judge cited a number of alleged trial and sentencing errors, including the upholding of a witness's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the First Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed.

(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreted Proposition 47, a recent initiative measure that makes certain types of forgery misdemeanors if the value of the forged instrument does not exceed $950. Held that the amount written on a forged check establishes its value for this purpose. Resolved a split in the courts of appeal regarding how to determine the value of a forged check.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a restitution order imposed against an owner of a medical supply company who was convicted of Medicare fraud. Held that she could be ordered to pay restitution even for losses resulting in part from conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.

(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 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 Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the competitor on the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and common law conversion claim, in relevant part.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an individual could obtain judicial review of the federal government's denial of his petition under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which authorizes individuals to petition for a determination of whether they must provide information requested by a government agency. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the district court, in a case involving information collected by the Patent and Trademark Office.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees in a Copyright and Lanham Act lawsuit after they prevailed by asserting a collateral estoppel defense. Affirmed the award of fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a textile company's copyright infringement claims accusing certain competitors of illegally copying its floral lace designs. Reversed dismissals.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(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 Second Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The court concluded the 44 articles at issue were not works made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976. District Court’s summary judgement in favor of RIT and denying the motion for partial summary judgement by the Estate reversed. Remanded for further proceedings.

MICHAEL Clarke will be targeted by Parramatta’s bowling attack when the former Australian cricket captain plays at Old Kings Oval on Saturday.

HOLROYD Parramatta Goannas under-13s team continued its dominance of the Western Sydney Giants Juniors, claiming a third consecutive premiership.

FROM being unwanted by Australia due to visa issues, Ali Rizwan is now a much wanted member for the Sydney Thunder Nation Cup All-Stars and is even invited to bowl to international teams at net practices.

FROM being unwanted by Australia due to visa issues, Ali Rizwan is now a much wanted member for the Sydney Thunder Nation Cup All-Stars and has even been invited to bowl to international teams at net practices.

The Wanderers won’t be relaxing after a draw against the Wellington Phoenix with their sights now set on Brisbane Roar.

THEY’RE two of the NRL’s most promising stars and brothers Jake and Tom Trbojevic both play for Manly. But there are strong rumours the pair are about to jump ship to St George.

MANLY skipper Adam Crosthwaite expects his quicks to fire on Saturday should his team field first in their two-day clash versus Sydney.

MANLY United FC will host fixtures next season on Saturday nights and Sunday afternoons in a bid to attract bigger crowds.

(United States First Circuit) - Convictions of several police officers on charges of conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights and for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, are affirmed, as the facts in this case amply support the determination that a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants, acting under color of state law, conspired to violate various residents' rights and the evidence supporting the convictions for conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute is substantially the same and is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the facts in the case.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a law firm's suit to enforce a fee-splitting agreement against another law firm, arising from an underlying class action, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant-law firm is reversed where an attorney may be equitably estopped from claiming that a fee-sharing contract is unenforceable due to noncompliance with rule 2-200 or rule 3.769, where that attorney is responsible for such noncompliance and has unfairly prevent another lawyer from complying with the rules' mandates.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - The offense of felonious possession or control of child pornography involves moral turpitude in every case, and as such, the State Bar Review Department's proposed discipline for the subject attorney who pled guilty to said offense is rejected, and the attorney is disbarred from the practice of law.

(United States Second Circuit) - The district court's order reciprocally suspending defendant-attorney from the practice of law before that court based on an order of the Connecticut Superior Court, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant received adequate notice of the charges; 2) defendant's other due process challenges to the state court proceedings are either meritless or, at most, concern harmless error; and 3) defendant also has not shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was a "substantial infirmity in the proof" supporting the state court disciplinary order.