(United States Federal Circuit) - Judgment holding defendant's asserted design patent for slippers known as Snoozies, invalid on summary judgment and also dismissing defendant's trade dress claims with prejudice is: 1) reversed as to the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, where the district court made multiple errors in its obviousness and functionality analysis; and 2) vacated as to the dismissal of defendant's trade dress claims, and remanded for the Court to reconsider its decision denying defendant's request to amend the pleadings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination that patents relating to systems for performing marine seismic surveying were unpatentable because they made no error justifying the disturbance of their obviousness decisions.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming in part and vacating in part the US Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeals Board inter partes review determination that a medical device company had not proven that the challenged patent claims were unpatentable in a suit relating to thoracic pedicle screws for scoliosis surgery.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. WesternGeco owns a patent for a system to survey the ocean floor and they believed that a competing system owned by ION infringed on their patent. WesternGeco sued. The jury found ION liable and awarded WesternGeco damages including lost profit damages. ION argued that the lost profit damages was not allowed and the appellate court agreed with them. The US Supreme Court disagreed and reversed and remanded the decision stating that lost profits for a domestic patent was permissible under the Patent Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that tribal sovereign immunity could not be asserted in a patent proceeding. A pharmaceutical company involved in a dispute over an eye medication patent transferred the title of its patent to a Native American tribe, which then moved to terminate the patent proceeding on the basis of sovereign immunity. Concluding that tribal sovereign immunity cannot be asserted in inter partes review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the denial of the Tribe's motion to terminate the proceeding.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of several patents related to systems and methods for indexing information stored in wide access databases. The district court agreed with the defendant and held all asserted claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. section 101.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for attempted robbery and two counts of assault is affirmed where the People met their burden to rebut a presumption of an unduly suggestive array after failing to preserve the computer-generated array of photographs that led to defendant's identification. The court expressly extended the presumption of suggestiveness to the People's failure to preserve a record of computer-generated photo arrays.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a trip and fall action, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there was dispute as to whether defendant or an adjacent business’s portion of a sidewalk was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, in which defendant refused to pay plaintiff more than a single deductable payment following the defense of a class action and resulting settlement involving the county, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed where county’s improper strip searches of arrestees over a four-year period constituted multiple occurrences under the insurance policy and defendant is responsible for paying deductibles to plaintiff with respect to each class member.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for murder in the second degree and related offenses are affirmed where the trial court: 1) properly permitted the People to call a government witness who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before receiving immunity; 2) properly permitted the government to use a redacted statement for the limited purpose of impeaching its own witness; and 3) did not abuse its discretion by precluding defendant's expert from testifying with regard to the effects of event stress on eyewitness identification.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a health action challenging the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPHRP)'s regulation prohibiting smoking in certain outdoor locations, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed where the OPRHP acted within the confines of legislation in enacting the regulation at issue.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree intentional murder is affirmed where defendant's attorney did not render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to move to reopen the suppression hearing following a detective's trial testimony about his interview with defendant.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, brought by plaintiff insurance companies seeking declaratory relief, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed where Insurance Law section 5102 does not require no-fault insurance carriers to pay a facility fee to reimburse New York State-accredited office-based surgery centers for the use of their facilities and related support services.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a personal injury action, arising after plaintiff, a minor child, was exposed to lead at her grandmother's apartment where she was cared for during the day, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff child' did not 'reside' at her grandmother's apartment for the purposes of section 27-2013[h][1] of the Administrative Code of the City of NY, which requires landlords to remove lead-based paint in any dwelling in which a child six year of age and under resides.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a civil action, arising from an auto accident allegedly caused by defendant school district's sign distracting and obstructing passing drivers on a roadway, the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff should not be permitted to serve late notice of a claim is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in determining that defendant would be substantially prejudiced without any record evidence to support that determination.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendant city after twelve-year old plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision involving a speeding driver on a Brooklyn roadway, the trial court's entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of a special duty because the city's acts or omissions regarding the road were made in a proprietary capacity; 2) the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the jury's finding that the city's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; and 3) the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The majority of a merits panel affirmed a district court judgment declaring a Mississippi redistricting plan as violative of the Voting Rights Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The denial of money damages to a member of the Texas Mexican Mafia in a case alleging constitutional and civil rights violations arising from a drug bust was affirmed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed in part. The panel affirms that an administratively imposed term of post-release supervision deprived plaintiff of her due process rights, and defendants do not have qualified immunity.

(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.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(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 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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was an investigator employed by the California State Lottery. He sued Defendant alleging retaliation in violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendant filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Plaintiff’s complaint. The trial court denied the motion. The appeals court agreed finding Plaintiff had established his complaint arose from a protected activity and that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case to determine whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 (2014 Law) to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law the district court's judgment that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA, but its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an action stemming from the death of plaintiff's 15-year old son from a rare form of asphyxiation known as "dry drowning" or "secondary drowning" shortly after his participation in a mandatory swimming class run by his physical education teacher, claiming violations of her son's civil rights under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity, is reversed where defendant's conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for a writ of review of the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, challenging its jurisdiction over a claim by a former professional basketball player in the NBA from 1981 through 1984 for cumulative injuries, the Board's decision is affirmed where: 1) Labor Code section 5954 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1069 require verification of a petition to review a decision of the Appeals Board; 2) California has a legitimate interest in an industrial injury when the applicant was employed by a California corporation and participated in other games and practices in California for non-California NBA teams, during the period of exposure causing cumulative injury; and 3) subjecting petitioner to California workers' compensation law is reasonable and not a denial of due process.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action challenging defendant Towson University's refusal to allow plaintiff to return to playing football after he suffered a near-death heat-stroke induced coma requiring a liver transplant and additional surgeries, the district court's judgment for plaintiff under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is reversed where plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to participate in defendant's football program under defendant's reasonably applied Return-to-Play Policy.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an injury action arising from a skiing accident, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant ski resort is affirmed where plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence of the link between his injuries and the assumed negligence of the defendant.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a class action suit against the National Football League (NFL), brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football, the District Court's judgment is affirmed where the District Court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal to determine where whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law, the District Court's holding that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA by its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an appeal from the trial court's denial of two consolidated petitions to set aside the certification of the environmental impact report and related permits for the construction of an arena to house the Golden State Warriors basketball team, as well as other events, and the construction of adjacent facilities, in the Mission Bay South redevelopment plan area of San Francisco, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where there is no merit to plaintiffs' objections to the sufficiency of the city's environmental analysis and its approval of the proposed project.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit for negligence and willful misconduct against soccer league defendants, arising out of the sexual abuse of plaintiff by her former soccer coach, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrers to the fourth amended complaint on the ground that they had no duty to protect plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party and dismissing the defendants is reversed where defendants had a duty to conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in their programs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an brought by former student-athlete plaintiffs, alleging that defendant exploited their likenesses commercially by selling non-exclusive licenses permitting consumers to download photographs from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Photo Library for non-commercial use, the district court's order granting defendant's special motion to strike and dismissing plaintiffs' claims without leave to amend is affirmed where: 1) the federal Copyright Act preempts the plaintiffs' publicity-right claims and the derivative UCL claim; and 2) in light of that holding, plaintiffs' cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on their challenged claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought following the break up of plaintiff's relationship with a former boxing champion, alleging invasion of privacy (both public disclosure of private facts and false light portrayal), defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on defendant's social media postings about the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy and its relationship to the couple's separation and his comments during a radio interview concerning the extent to which plaintiff had undergone cosmetic surgery procedures, the trial court's denial of defendant's special motion to strike those causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is reversed as to with respect to plaintiff's claims for defamation and false light portrayal, as well as her cause of action for public disclosure of private facts based on defendant's comments about plaintiff's cosmetic surgery. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit against a principal-defendant of a private high school brought by a student's parent-plainitff, alleging that plaintiff's First Amendment right of freedom of assembly and his state-law right to be free from the intentional infliction of emotional distress were violated by defendant in banning him from attending virtually all school events, on or off school property, because of his opposition to defendant's bullying and harassing efforts to compel plaintiff's daughter to remain a member of the girls varsity basketball team, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity, to the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property to attend spectator sports contests to which the public was invited, and caused plaintiff's removal from a non-school, privately owned stadium at which Johnson was present as an invitee of the owner; and 2) reversed in part where qualified immunity should have been granted to defendant the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property for purposes other than attending sports contests, given the lack of an established First Amendment right of general access to school property.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - An award of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits to a former NFL player displaying symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is affirmed where the board of the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan failed to follow a reasoned process or explain the basis of its determination to deny benefits.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving helmets worn by professional football players the manufacturers of the helmets were being sued by multiple parties, so the manufacturer sued their insurers for indemnity. The insurers wanted to continue in extended discovery and demanded logs of documents withheld during prior discovery, but the court held that a stay of discover is appropriate, while the manufacturer must also provide privilege logs, reversing the trial court's decision as to the stay and affirming its order as to the privilege logs.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of an action brought under diversity jurisdiction by the LA Lakers against an insurer when it denied coverage and declined to defend them in a lawsuit alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because the court agreed that the lawsuit was an invasion of privacy suit that was specifically excluded from coverage.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the denial of preliminary injunctive relief in an action brought by a high school coach who alleged First Amendment violations when he was suspended for kneeling and praying in the middle of a football field immediately after football games because while coaching he was a public employee, not a private citizen.