(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A two-level enhancement of the sentence in the case of a man convicted on marijuana charges was not supported by the evidence.

(California Court of Appeal) - Vacated conviction. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for the conviction of a murder in 1986. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus asserting that newly available DNA evidence shows that he was not at the scene of the crime.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a civil enforcement action brought by the State of California against appellants for violation of the unfair competition laws (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., arising out of a complex real estate scam through which appellants acquired and rented real estate belonging to others, the trial court's judgment and award of damages in favor of the People is affirmed over defendants' six arguments on appeal.

(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.

(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.

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

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

DAYYAN Neve will look to repeat the dose when he competes in the fourth event of the Bacardi Surf Tour this Sunday at Dee Why Beach.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment dismissing this qui tam action alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of kickbacks, bribes, or rebates designed to induce referrals of Medicare and Medicaid business, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's former general counsel, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated his ethical obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime; and 2) the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - The appeal is dismissed upon the ground that the issues presented have become moot because the attorney was automatically disbarred upon his conviction of a felony on March 14, 2014.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Removal of petitioner Wrocklage from his position as Customs and Border Protection Officer at defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is vacated and remanded, where the charges of unauthorized disclosure and lack of candor are not supported by substantial evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on patent infringement claims involving a wire tier device that is used to bale recyclables or solid waste is: 1) reversed in part and remanded with respect to claims 1-4 of the ’877 patent, where the district court erred in it construction of the terms "each" and "a respective one"; but 2) affirmed on claim 5 of the ’877 patent and all of the asserted claims of the ’992 patent; and 3) affirmed on the denial of plaintiff's motion for additional discovery pursuant to and the dismissal of plaintiff's Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act cause of action.

(United States Second Circuit) - Defendant's convictions under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) and the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA) are affirmed, where: 1) on the EEA conviction, defendant fails to show that purported error in the pleading of the law's jurisdictional element affected his substantial rights or the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings; 2) on the NSPA conviction, defendant fails to show that the theft of his employer's computer code did not satisfy the law's "goods, wares, or merchandise" requirement because, although the code itself was intangible intellectual property, defendant stole it in the tangible form of thousands of sheets of paper; 3) defendant fails to establish any instructional error; and 4) defendant's claims of constructive amendment and prejudicial variance fail on the merits.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's orders purporting to clarify a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendants from using various materials and processes first developed by plaintiff, are vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked jurisdiction over this case when plaintiff initiated this lawsuit because plaintiff's complaint does not allege a sufficient controversy concerning inventorship, but instead concerns only ownership of the disputed patent.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated state-law torts of misappropriation of trade secrets and engaged in conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, where: 1) the district court relied on judgments about the merits that go beyond what is authorized at the complaint stage; and 2) plaintiffs' specific factual allegations of protective measures taken against trade secret misappropriation are enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a defendant was not entitled to prevailing party attorney fees under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, enacted in 2016, because the plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice meant no one had prevailed here. Affirmed the denial of fees.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the mother of a U.S. Army service member who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq did not state a claim against a Germany-based bank. She claimed that the bank was responsible for her son's death under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it had conspired with Iran by evading U.S. banking sanctions. She contended that the fatal bomb was a signature Iranian weapon. Affirmed that she did not plausibly plead a claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that four divorced men could not proceed with their lawsuit accusing Israeli government officials and others of misconduct in connection with their divorce proceedings and child support orders. Affirmed a dismissal based partly on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and partly on failure to state a claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court was within its discretion to deny recognition to a Moroccan judgment against a haircare and liqour tycoon in a lawsuit relating to a failed energy provision agreement.

(United States Third Circuit) - Co-defendants' convictions related to a scheme to fraudulently bid for Pennsylvania transportation projects as a disadvantaged business enterprise is affirmed where a shareholder lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy to challenge the search of corporate property unless he has shown a personal connection to the places searched and materials seized. Sentences are vacated and remanded for resentencing where the amount of loss defendants are responsible for is the face value of the contracts minus the fair market value of their services rendered instead of the face value of the fraudulently procured contracts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to Google executives in a suit brought by three shareholders bringing derivative suits alleging the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors, an arrangement that had been previously abandoned when it gave rise to antitrust issues with the Department of Justice, because the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–09206 Index No. 604223/16

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a Connecticut attorney, sued Defendants, a group of title insurance companies, for violating a Connecticut law that allows only Connecticut attorneys to act as title agents in the state. The original complaint contained class action allegations under the Class Action Fairness Act, but Plaintiff removed all class-action allegations in a subsequent complaint. The district court held that without the class-act allegations, it no longer had jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A company found, during a random audit by the Indiana Department of Insurance, to have committed hundreds of regulatory violations that entered into an agreement to pay a fine and relinquish its licenses could not subsequently sue the Department's commissioner alleging discrimination for their out-of-state residency without providing a valid reason to void the agreement.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that West Virginia unlawfully discriminated against a U.S. Marshalls Service retiree when it gave a generous pension tax benefit only to state or local retirees who served in law enforcement. The plaintiff relied on a federal statute that, broadly speaking, bars states from taxing the compensation of federal employees differently from state employees. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with him that West Virginia's tax rule unlawfully disfavored federal retirees.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an administrative law action challenging the trial court's order that communications between the Agricultural Labor Relations Board and its general counsel, concerning whether to seek injunctive relief against Gerawan Farming, Inc. over complaints of unfair labor practices, must be disclosed under the Public Records Act, Government Code section 6251, the order is reversed where the Board's internal communications concerning its prosecution of Gerawan Farming are protected by attorney-client privilege.

(California Court of Appeal) - Concluding that a defendant and their counsel unilaterally created an appeal-able order by making a motion in bad faith with the intention of creating a series of appeals that would forestall and damage the ability to proceed to trial and affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration filed 11 days before the scheduled trial on its merits and imposing monetary sanctions on the defense an counsel for bringing a frivolous appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denying a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition challenging a trial judge's refusal to disqualify himself and for the attorney's removal as defense counsel in a case where the defense attorney engaged in a series of procedural delays in his defense of a man charged with two counts of rape that the court eventually held was denying the victim, defendant, and government their right to a speedy trial because the court correctly found that his motion to disqualify was untimely and the trial court had the authority to remove defense counsel to ensure adequate representation is provided and to avoid the substantial impairment of court proceedings... a rarely exercised authority that was held to be appropriate in this instance.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an en banc opinion, addressed the constitutionality of a San Francisco ordinance that requires health warnings to be included in advertisements for certain sugar-sweetened beverages. Industry groups challenged the ordinance, contending that it violates freedom of commercial speech. Finding this argument persuasive, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court should have granted a preliminary injunction against the ordinance.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment to Google executives in a suit brought by three shareholders bringing derivative suits alleging the corporation was harmed by executives who agreed to refrain from actively recruiting employees working for competitors, an arrangement that had been previously abandoned when it gave rise to antitrust issues with the Department of Justice, because the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a lawsuit to unwind a public water agency's acquisition of all of the stock of a retail water purveyor within its territory, the trial court's order refusing to unwind the transaction is affirmed where: 1) the streamlined procedures available for validating certain acts of public agencies, Code Civ. Proc.section 860 et seq., are inapplicable; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's factual finding that the purveyor did not become the agency's alter ego in this case; and 3) the agency did not violate article XVI, section 17.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.