be

Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Co.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part a patent infringement final judgment. Polara, a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems, filed suit against its competitor Campbell and prevailed after a trial on certain infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Campbell's JMOL motion but vacated the enhanced damages award and remanded for further proceedings.




be

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.

(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.




be

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe v. US

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a federally recognized Indian tribe's lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief for the alleged taking and mismanagement of its water rights. The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe filed suit against the federal government seeking to enforce its water rights on its reservation located along the Missouri River in South Dakota. Agreeing with the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit held that the tribe failed to allege an injury in fact, because there was no allegation that the tribe lacked sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation.




be

Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.




be

Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.

(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.




be

US v. Begay

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Defendant’s conviction for second-degree murder affirmed. However, because second-degree murder can be committed recklessly, it does not categorically constitute a “crime of violence.” Therefore, the conviction of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence is reversed.



  • Criminal Law & Procedure

be

US v. Barber

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Facebook evidence and cellphone data were properly admitted in the conviction of a man for stealing firearms from a federally licensed firearms dealer.




be

There's a war brewing between soccer players and administrators




be

Ligue 1 season canceled, no sports in France until September




be

Soccer Mock Draft: Building the best team using Under-21 players




be

Transfer Gossip: Sancho becomes Barca backup plan, Lampard rings Mertens




be

CABELL COUNTY COMMISSION v. WHITT

(WV Supreme Court of Appeals) - No. 18-0408




be

Hakoah hopeful of being in finals hunt

WITH the NSW Premier League season drawing closer to the end, Hakoah FC’s division-one team will be looking to string some wins together to ensure a finals berth.




be

Anatomy of a Classic Goal: Bergkamp's pirouette vs. Newcastle




be

Leicester City's iconic 2016 title run was beautiful and surreal




be

K League Matchday 1 betting preview: Expect fireworks in Ulsan




be

Clubs allowed up to 5 substitutes, VAR can be scrapped




be

Belarusian Premier League weekend betting preview




be

Belgium boss Martinez: Hazard sidelined 'for at least 3 months'




be

Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.




be

Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.

(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.




be

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com

(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.




be

Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. Label Lane International, Inc.

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




be

Ticats dump Eskimos in East final, earn 1st Grey Cup berth since 2014




be

Blue Bombers stun Roughriders, advance to 1st Grey Cup since 2011




be

107th Grey Cup primer: Can Bombers crush Ticats' dream season?




be

Watch: Harris rumbles home to give Bombers early lead after turnover




be

Blue Bombers thump Ticats to win 1st Grey Cup in 29 years




be

Blue Bombers' Harris wins Grey Cup MVP, Outstanding Canadian




be

Report: Ex-Stamps DB Roberson to sign with Bears




be

Jefferson agrees to 2-year extension with Blue Bombers




be

CFL delays beginning of season due to COVID-19




be

Kyrgios reveals tattoo tributes to Kobe, LeBron




be

Gilberti v. Coppola

(United States First Circuit) - District court's decision admonishing interested party-attorney for unprofessional conduct in his representation of a junior mortgagor related to the sale of the foreclosed property, is affirmed, where: 1) attorney's claim that opposing attorney converted funds was never supported by any evidence; 2) attorney's allegation that opposing attorney violated the criminal usury statute was frivolous; and 3) attorney turned what seemed to be innocent misunderstandings into claims of perjury in his allegations of false statements.



  • Ethics & Disciplinary Code
  • Ethics & Professional Responsibility

be

Danser v. Stansberry

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In this action brought by plaintiff-prisoner alleging that prison officials showed a deliberate indifference to his safety in violation of his constitutional rights, summary judgment in favor of plaintiff is vacated and remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of defendant prison officials, where the district court erred in denying the prison officials' motion for summary judgment asserting qualified immunity.




be

Berman v. Regents of the University of California

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment denying plaintiff-student's petition for writ of mandate to overturn a two-quarter suspension from the University of California San Diego for hitting another student in the head is affirmed, where the University's Student Conduct Code authorized either the student conduct officer responsible for his case or the Council of Deans of Student Affairs to impose suspension as a sanction when the student conduct review board did not recommend suspension.




be

Attorney's Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Miss. in Iowa

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.




be

ASDI, Inc. v. Beard Research, Inc.

(Supreme Court of Delaware) - In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where a lawful termination of a contract is not fatal to a claim of tortious interference with contractual relations, because the focus of the claim is on the defendant's wrongful conduct that induces the termination of the contract, irrespective of whether the termination is lawful.




be

Waymo v. Uber

(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissing the appeal of a district court's denial of an application for writ of mandamus seeking to avoid the production of a report produced at the direction of counsel in a case involving the alleged theft of driverless vehicle technology where attorney-client and work-product privilege were claimed because alternative means of relief were available, the petitioner could not establish a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief, and the district court properly determined that privilege did not apply to the discovery document at issue.




be

Uber Technologies, Inc. v. Google LLC

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that Google, which had initiated arbitration proceedings against two of its former employees, was entitled to obtain discovery from nonparty Uber. Google sought documents relating to Uber's purchase from the two former employees of a self-driving vehicle company called Ottomotto, which Google claimed the two employees created in breach of their contracts and fiduciary duties. Reversing the trial court, the California First Appellate District held that Uber could not withhold the requested documents on grounds of attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.



  • Labor & Employment Law
  • Trade Secrets
  • Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

be

Ashton was born to be a gymnast

Swinging, climbing, and taking risks has always been in Ashton Jamieson’s nature. So his parents made the decision early on to enrol him in gymnastics.




be

Ben Morrison is a Wanderers net-finder

FINDING the net for the Wanderers fulfilled one of teenage soccer star Ben Morrison’s dreams — but he has higher goals in his sights.




be

Wicks claims Robertson victory

THE WAITING is over for voters in the marginal seat of Robertson, with Liberal MP Lucy Wicks claiming victory three days after election day, despite an evident swing to Labor.




be

Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.




be

Kiobel v. Cravath, Swain & Moore, LLP

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed an order which had allowed the plaintiff to subpoena documents from a U.S. law firm for use in litigation against Royal Dutch Shell in the Netherlands. The appeals court held that Shell's American counsel should not be compelled to deliver documents that would not be discoverable abroad and that were in counsel's hands solely because they were sent to the U.S. for the purpose of American litigation. The appeals court further determined that the district court abused its discretion under 28 U.S.C. section 1782 when it permitted the plaintiff to subpoena the documents.




be

Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that eleven American families could not revive their lawsuit against the Palestinian Authority and others for various terror attacks in Israel that killed or wounded the plaintiffs or their family members. The plaintiffs relied on the 2018 enactment of the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act, but the statute did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of recalling the mandate in this already completed case, which had been dismissed on procedural grounds.




be

Behm v. Clear View Technologies

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against officers and directors of a company in which plaintiff invested, alleging false representations, following a default judgment for plaintiff, the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment on grounds that it did not have sufficient notice of punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 435.115(f) and that it was entitled to mandatory relief under section 473(b), is affirmed where: 1) due process requires that when a plaintiff moves for discovery terminating sanctions and seeks punitive damages, a statement under section 425.111(f) must be served a reasonable time before obtaining those sanctions; and 2) notice must be sufficient to afford a defendant the opportunity to fairly appraise the full amount of damages sought by the time he or she needs to respond and oppose the motion.




be

Rodriguez-Miranda v. Benin

(United States First Circuit) - In another appeal in a protracted employment dispute between two former colleagues in which plaintiff sought payment of his promised wages and loan money, the District Court's decision to use Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c) to hold defendant and related entities liable for the judgment originally entered against defendant's company only is affirmed where the District Court did not plainly err in joining related entities as alter egos of defendant's company and holding them liable for the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.




be

Seth Korman, et al., appellants, v. Roberta D. Corbett, etc., respondent, et al., defendants.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18




be

ELIZABETH PRENDERGAST v. MARIA SWIENCICKY

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275