(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with executing a scheme to defraud local governments by falsely representing that his industrial fans were assembled in the United States. Appeals court found no error in the judgment or the sentence.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The panel held that the district court erred by concluding it could not listen to the defendant’s allocution before determining whether a reduction of acceptance of responsibility was warranted under the Sentencing Guidelines, affecting the defendant’s substantial rights and fairness of the proceedings.

WHILE most players his age have jumped two or three clubs, Mitch Aubusson has stayed loyal to the Roosters and joined some exclusive company in the process.

NORTH Sydney mayor Jilly Gibson has made an astonishing claim that councillors had a pact to drive her to a nervous breakdown adding that there was “an evil feeling within” the council.

NORTH Sydney’s Greenwood Hotel become an apres ski venue last weekend — complete with 60 tonnes of snow.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's denial of a securities lawyer's novel argument that two former stockbrokers for whom he produced false opinion letters in connection to a pump and dump scheme fell into the safe harbor provision of securities law because the stockbrokers were affiliates of the issuing company and ineligible for safe harbor and other procedural complaints were ill-founded.

(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 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 Supreme Court) - Held that the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a prevailing party only the six categories of costs specified in the general costs statute. A software manufacturer that obtained an infringement judgment against another company argued that the Act's reference to "full costs" meant that a court could award it costs beyond the six categories. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument for additional costs in an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

PROMISING cricketer Arjun Nair admits he hears the hype about his cricket, but he just wants his actions to do the talking.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment of the Committee on Grievances suspending petitioner-attorney from practicing law in the Southern District of New York for a period of seven years is affirmed, where: 1) there is no error in the committee's conclusion that petitioner violation the New York Code of Professional Responsibility; 2) the Committee acted well within its informed discretion in ordering a seven-year suspension, notwithstanding the lack of directly analogous precedent, based on its conclusion that petitioner's conduct was sui generis.

(United States Second Circuit) - The order of the Committee on Grievances for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, directing that the subject attorney's name be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to practice in its court is affirmed, where: 1) the record supports a determination that the attorney knowingly withdrew client funds without permission or authority and used said funds for his own personal purposes; and 2) disbarment was within the range of appropriate punishments.

(United States Second Circuit) - In this civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant volunteer ambulance corps and several of its directors violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by levying disciplinary charges against her without a hearing, summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of plaintiff's federal constitutional claims is affirmed, where: 1) emergency medical care and general ambulance services are not "traditionally exclusive public functions"; 2) extensive State regulation and oversight does not therefore entwine defendant with the State; and 3) defendant's conduct does not amount to state action.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In this case, in an underlying federal action, the Securities and Exchange Commission moved for sanctions against appellant Dunn. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion in part. Respondent Committee of Professional Standards thereafter filed a petition alleging that Dunn had "engaged in fraudulent conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice adversely reflecting on her fitness as a lawyer" in violation of Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(c), (d), and (h). The basis of the complaint was essentially the text of the Magistrate's sanctions opinion. Judgment of the Appellate Division finding Dunn guilty of the charged misconduct and finding that collateral estoppel applied to the Magistrate's sanctions order is reversed and the matter is remitted, where: 1) while the issue of whether Dunn had made false statements in her written declaration, it was not the focus of the hearing on the underlying motion for sanctions; and 2) the cursory nature of the sanctions proceedings itself failed to provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the case.

(United States Supreme Court) - Disciplinary sanctions imposed by the state bar, pursuant to Cannon 7(C)(1), on a candidate for judicial office, who mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions for her campaign, are affirmed over a First Amendment challenge, where Cannon 7(C)(1) is narrowly tailored to serve the State's compelling interest.

(United States First Circuit) - In dispute arising from a district court order preliminarily enjoining defendants from misappropriating plaintiff's trade secrets by selling computer mouse products similar to or derived from those made by plaintiff, order is affirmed where court properly upheld the validity of a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, involving certain ergonomic computer mouse products, district court's judgment is: 1) reversed where the it erred in extending the injunction to defendant's ErgoRoller product because the record does not support the finding that defendant breached the NDA in producing this product; 2) affirmed where it did not err in the duration of the injunction as applied to the other enjoined products; and 3) affirmed where it did not err in jury instructions on lost profits, as but for the breach, plaintiff could have recovered the lost profits by employing another company to manufacture the products and selling them.

(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 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 Second Circuit) - Held that a medical device manufacturer did not violate the intellectual property rights of a company it hired to help automate its quality testing process. The issue involved reuse of computer source code. Affirmed a JMOL.

Australian hockey star Adam Imer will be pulling on the green-and-yellow of Brazil this August and is heading to the Olympic Games where his biggest challenge will be taking on the Aussies.

THE controversial ATO building proposed for the Gosford waterfront has received the green light, but not without major criticism of the city’s former council for failing to deliver a performing arts precinct.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed immunity, reversed attorney fees. Plaintiff sued Defendant on a premises liability claim. The trial court found that governmental immunity applied and awarded judgment to Defendant along with attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1038. The appeals court held that government immunity did apply, but reversed the award of attorney fees because there was a real question of whether government immunity was applicable or not such that Plaintiff’s lawsuit had a reasonable cause which defeated the attorney fee award.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a homeowner, attempted a mortgage loan modification with Defendant, but when Plaintiff fell behind in payments, Defendant foreclosed. Plaintiff sued for negligence. The trial court sustained Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that no tort duty is owed on contracts. The appeals court held that a lender does not owe a borrower a duty to offer, consider, or approve a loan modification.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The magistrate judge and district court properly denied the claims of a group of fishermen to a portion of the punitive damages settlement granted to a class of claimants alleging harm as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill because the court was bound to precedent, the plain language of the settlement, and a deferential standard of review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Walgreens was not responsible for third parties injured on the road by a customer of the pharmacy who was negligently given someone else's prescription. They did not owe a tort duty of care to third parties.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant was charged with executing a scheme to defraud local governments by falsely representing that his industrial fans were assembled in the United States. Appeals court found no error in the judgment or the sentence.

(United States Third Circuit) - Dismissal of a shareholder action alleging that defendant Board of Directors and the individual members failed to comply with its 2007 plan which would render tax deductible certain incentive compensation paid to the company's executives, which allegedly resulted in the payment of more than $36 million of excess compensation, is affirmed, where: 1) with regard to the derivative suit, plaintiff did not make a pre-suit demand to the Board of Directors or present sufficient allegations explaining why a demand would have been futile; and 2) with regard to the direct suit, federal tax law does not confer voting rights on shareholders not otherwise authorized to vote or affect long-settled Delaware corporation law which permits corporations to issue shares without voting rights, so plaintiff's contention regarding defendant-company's issuance of non-voting shares fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a class action brought on behalf of plaintiff and other participants in defendant-employer's 401(k) retirement savings plan alleging that defendant-employer breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it liquidated two funds held by the plan on an arbitrary timeline without conducting a thorough investigation, thereby causing a substantial loss to the plan, judgment for defendant is: 1) affirmed in part, where the district court properly concluded that defendant-employer breached its duty of procedural prudence and therefore bore the burden of proof as to causation; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where the district court then failed to apply the correct legal standard in assessing defendant-employer's liability.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's summary judgment as to nine outside directors of McAfee in a class action corporate malfeasance case relating to the company's merger with Intel in which former public shareholders alleged an unfair process contaminated by conflicts that resulted in an undervalued price at sale, but reversing the judgment as to the former CEO and the corporate defendants

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer that did not receive timely notice of an accident could not be compelled to provide coverage.