(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 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 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 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.

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

(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.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(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) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a jury's finding that an investor was defrauded by an oil exploration company, which used his investment only to pay off preexisting debts. Affirmed the judgment, in relevant part.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an attorney was entitled to another hearing on whether he should be suspended from appearing before the district court. The case arose from alleged improprieties in a court-supervised settlement program established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an Alabama-based manufacturer of commercial signs was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a contractual dispute between two companies in the oil-drilling business, vacated a bench trial judgment, in part. The contract related to exploratory drilling for offshore oil.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an electrical contractor was entitled to compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a short-term vacation rental business was improperly denied compensation for losses attributable to BP's 2010 oil spill. The settlement program administrator, and the district court, misinterpreted the settlement agreement's definition of a failed business. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Held that an oil company did not breach its contract with several other oil companies. The dispute arose out of a joint agreement to cooperatively develop oil prospects in Texas. Reversed the judgment below.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a trademark appeal of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision affirming the refusal to register the mark LOUISIANA FISH FRY PRODUCTS BRING THE TASTE OF LOUISIANA HOME! without a disclaimer of FISH FRY PRODUCTS, the Board's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports its finding that FISH FRY PRODUCTS has acquired distinctiveness.

(United States First Circuit) - In a lawsuit over the trademarking and continued sale of a chicken sandwich, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and Copyright Act, the district court's order dismissing the federal claims and declination of jurisdiction over the supplemental Puerto Rico law claims is affirmed where: 1) there was no violation of the Copyright Act because neither the name "Pechu Sandwich" nor the recipe are eligible for copyright protection; and 2) the complaint fails to sufficiently plead that defendant committed fraud in the procurement of a federal trademark for the sandwich.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by operators of recycling centers where beverage containers sold in California may be redeemed for their California Redemption Value, against companies that sell or distribute beverages containers in California, contending that defendants knowingly and "falsely" label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with "CA CRV," "California Redemption Value," or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California, and alleging common law tort claims against defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, interference with prospective economic advantage and business relations, and breach of express warranty, the trial court's judgment of dismissal is affirmed where the injunctive and compensatory relief plaintiffs seek cannot be awarded by a California court because it would violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a case involving personal guaranties to secure real estate development loans, the judgment of the Eighth Circuit in favor of the lender is affirmed by an equally divided court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal concerns the interpretation and administration of a family trust, the residuary assets of which comprise cash and other liquid assets, real property, and royalty agreements for licensing of the Marie Callender name, the trial court's ruling, that the trust residuary should be divided based on what the parties referred to as the 'changing fraction method,' is reversed where: 1) based on the terms of the trust that initially divided the residuary into one-third interests for each of the three beneficiaries, those percentage interests remained fixed and the changing fraction method does not apply; and 2) the court erred when it ruled defendant was responsible for a portion of the estate taxes on a piece of real property left to her outright, because the trust stated she was not to be liable for any taxes.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an award for attorney's fees arising from an employment action in arbitration, the trial court's correction of an award of attorney's fees to plaintiff as opposed to defendant was affirmed where: 1) the arbitrator's award to employer-defendant was contrary to California Labor Code section 1194's one-way fee shifting provision; 2) statutory rights to attorney's fees are not waived or forfeited by an arbitration agreement; 3) trial court's remand to the arbitrator did not violate federal law; and 4) additional award of attorney's fees to plaintiff which was vacated as it was not supported by the arbitration agreement or statute.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case, challenging the FDA's decision to redact certain commercially-sensitive information concerning egg-production farms in Texas, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the FDA properly withheld information under FOIA exemption 4 that was likely to cause substantial competitive harm.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board refusing registration of a stylized form of the mark CHURRASCOS is affirmed over restaurant company-appellant's appeal, where: 1) the Board's decision contains no harmful legal error; and 2) the Board's finding that the mark is generic is supported by substantial evidence.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark action concerning the mark for Pudgie's pizza chain restaurants, the district court's grant of summary judgment to plaintiffs is affirmed where there is no genuine issue of material fact that defendant Tarntino obtained his federal trademark registration of PUDGIE'S by fraud.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an attorney's fees action, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action is reversed where: 1) an award of attorneys' fees are permissible under F.R.C.P. 41(d) ; but 2) the Fair Labor Standards Act does not permit an award of attorneys' fees for defendants and plaintiff's conduct was not undertaken in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action, arising after defendant revoked plaintiff-restaurant's alcoholic beverage license and related consent decrees and following state court proceedings on the matter, the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed and the case remanded where plaintiff's action is an independent, concurrent action challenging defendant's administrative actions and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action claiming of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition brought under the Lanham Act and Nevada state law by a beverage company-plaintiff, which sells a competing line of flavored vodkas, the District Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where the district court erred in: 1) failing to place the burden of proof on defendant, the moving party; 2) failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff; and 3) never analyzing whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed.

(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought a group of drivers who allege that disseminating certain information contained in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) database of inspection history and safety records pertaining to commercial motor vehicle operators, exceeds the agency's statutory mandate under 49 U.S.C. section 31150, which governs the agency's disclosure obligations, the district court's grant of the FMCSA's motion to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) section 31150 was ambiguous as to the agency's authority to include non-serious driver related safety violations in the database; and 2) the agency's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference and ultimately permissible under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by produce growers under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), brought by growers who sold their perishable agricultural products on credit to a distributor, thereby making the distributor a trustee over a PACA trust holding the perishable products and any resulting proceeds for the growers as PACA-trust beneficiaries, the district court's summary judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed where pursuant to Boulder Fruit Express & Heger Organic Farm Sales v. Transp. Factoring, Inc., 251 F.3d 128 (9th Cir.2001), a commercially reasonable factoring agreement removes accounts receivable from the PACA trust without a trustee's breach of trust, thus defeating the growers' claims.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of a class-action suit alleging a willful violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) is affirmed because subsequent legislation clarified that receipts with credit card expiration dates do not raise a material risk of identity theft and no specific harm was alleged.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A former employee alleging discrimination could be compelled to arbitrate his claims because he didn't opt out of the company's arbitration agreement.

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded. A final rule issued by the National Credit Union Administration intended to make it easier for community credit unions to expand their coverage that was opposed by bankers was largely affirmed, but remanded to consider a portion that might impact poor and minority urban residents.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court’s order vacating a registered judgement is reversed, holding that a court need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor in order to “merely register” a previously obtained judgment.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissed appeal. Plaintiff and Defendant agreed to an expedited jury trial process pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 630.01. As part of the expedited process, the parties agree to waive the right to appeal. Plaintiff sought to appeal the amount of the damages award, but by executing the consent to expedited jury trial she voluntarily waived her right to appeal.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A preliminary injunction against enforcement of state laws requiring parental notification in the case of pregnant unemancipated minors seeking abortions was upheld.