(United States Fourth Circuit) - The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying plaintiffs' action seeking declaratory relief that it was not committing violations asserted by defendants in an earlier filed state law action, pending the resolution of the earlier parallel state lawsuit filed by defendants, where plaintiffs had every opportunity to procure a federal forum by removing defendants' first filed state suit rather than by bringing a separate federal action in an entirely separate federal district.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an action alleging that the government misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets, the Fifth Circuit's decision vacating the district court’s judgment for plaintiff and remanding the case for transfer of the case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1631, is affirmed, where: 1) the Fifth Circuit ruling that the case must be transferred to the Claims Court is law of the case; and 2) the Claims Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit because although plaintiff brought the action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which now must give way, plaintiff is within the class of those authorized to recover upon proof of breach of contract, injury, and amount of damages, as well as a Fifth Amendment taking.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In suit to correct inventorship of the "Tuschl Patents," the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in ruling that this is not a dispute between States falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court; 2) plaintiff was free to choose between filing this suit in the Supreme Court and filing in federal district court; and 3) the University of Massachusetts is not an indispensable party.

(United States First Circuit) - The district court's preliminary injunction that restrained defendant, a former employee of plaintiff, from doing business with certain customers to whom he had sold products and services while in plaintiff's employ, is affirmed, where: 1) the identity of the party making initial contact is just one factor among many that the trial court should consider in drawing the line between solicitation and acceptance; 2) the evidence of record is adequate to underpin the lower court's determinations that defendant violated the non-solicitation covenant and that plaintiff is therefore likely to succeed on the merits; and 3) the district court narrowly tailored the preliminary injunction with respect to non-disclosure, enjoining only the use of information contained in defendant's notes.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court precludes defendant from recovering the interest paid on the borrowed funds that are deposited with the court in lieu of an appeal bond, and a recent amendment of rule 8.278, which expressly allows recovery of interest in this situation, and which became effective during the pendency of this appeal, should not be given retroactive application.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's decision finding defendant in contempt of its 2001 order adopting the parties' Settlement Agreement that plaintiff would be the sole owner of three U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent application, is reversed and the injunction is vacated, where none of challenged conduct in developing and selling the pressure exchanger violates any provision of the 2001 Order.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff finding that defendant had misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets regarding its digital stamping technology (DST), which was disclosed to defendant during negotiations pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreement, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff did not fail to adequately identify its trade secrets; 2) the trial court did not err in its identification of the misappropriated trade secrets; 3) ideas are protectable as trade secrets; 4) design concepts underlying plaintiff's DST constitute protectable "information"; 5) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that plaintiff's DST design concepts had independent economic value and the finding that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets; 6) the trial court properly based its damages award on the reasonable royalty measure of damages, and did not err in awarding prejudgment interest; and 7) defendant has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in basing its fee award on local hourly rates or shown the hourly rates employed by the trial court were unreasonable.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Award of attorney fees to defendant in an underlying action for misappropriation of trade secret by seeking to hire away plaintiff's employees, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's findings are free of procedural error; 2) the finding of plaintiff's bad faith is amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor, which they are entitled to do under California state law; and 3) defendant prevailed when plaintiff dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, arising after two manufacturers of ambient light sensors shared technical and financial information during negotiations for a possible merger, the jury verdict for plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part where: 1) defendant’s liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure is affirmed; 2) four patent infringement claims are reversed and four are affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards are vacated and remanded for further consideration.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement action, arising after two manufacturers of ambient light sensors shared technical and financial information during negotiations for a possible merger, the appeals court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part a jury verdict for plaintiff as follows: 1) defendant's liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure was affirmed; 2) several patent infringement claims were reversed and several were affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards were vacated and remanded for further consideration.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving two competing healthcare companies, held that nurse recruiters who left one company to join the other did not breach clauses in their contracts that prohibited them from soliciting other employees to leave, because those clauses were unenforceable here. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reverse and remand. Defendant advanced the theory that its insurance policy did not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because they are not “accidents”. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, insurance company, stating that the intentional decision to drive while intoxicated meant the collision was not an accident. The appeals court held that there was nothing in Texas law that would construe the term “accident” in the manner put forth by the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action on behalf of their 13-year-old son who was struck and killed by a school bus. The jury found that Plaintiff’s son was 80 percent responsible for the accident and awarded $250,000 in damages. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial. The appeals court held that Plaintiffs had not made a cognizable argument as to why the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and found no merit in Plaintiff’s claims. Affirmed judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - 9th Circuit panel certified two questions to the California Supreme Court: 1) Does Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code apply to covenants not to compete not involving employer and employee? and 2) Does a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations require the plaintiff to plead and prove an intentionally wrongful act in cases not involving at-will employment contracts?

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability for an assault that injured him in the Defendant's parking lot. The trial court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of showing foreseeability of violent criminal assaults. Therefore, Defendant did not have a legal duty to implement additional security measures to prevent possible third-party conduct.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, who is deaf, requested an American Sign Language interpreter at Defendants' continuing educations courses. Held that while a public accommodation must furnish appropriate assistance to individuals with disabilities, specific aid is not required, but there was an issue of material fact as to whether effective communication was offered to Plaintiff even if different than that requested.

(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.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment ordering forfeiture to the United States of seven ancient Cypriot coins and eight ancient Chinese coins. A numismatist organization that opposed import restrictions on ancient coins argued that the forfeiture order imposed in connection with international rules on ownership of cultural property was improper. However, the Fourth Circuit rejected each of the organization's contentions of error.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of the US Court of International Trade (ITC) which had found that the certain merchandise involving compression hosiery was not duty free. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the analysis of the ITC was incorrect, but the correct result was ultimately reached.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(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) - In an insurance dispute, addressed an issue relating to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Held that an insurance contract's conformity-to-statute provision did not negate the agreement to arbitrate.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District judge’s denial of stay in an extradition treaty request affirmed, where the political offense exception in the Lithuania-US extradition treaty did not apply, the magistrate judge did not abuse discretion in finding probable cause that petitioner committed crimes, petitioner did not provide detailed evidence of "atrocious punishment" in Lithuanian prison, and the Secretary of State’s decision to grant extradition did not violate petitioner’s constitutional right to due process. Petitioner was charged with family/domestic offenses related to the police capture of her niece, where Petitioner alleged niece was subjected to molestation by niece's mother and Lithuanian government officials.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment against Defendant in the Senior courts of England and Wales. The issue on appeal was the admissibility of a certain document. The appeals court determined that the document was rightly admitted by the trial court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants knowingly aided or abetted November, 2005 attacks in Jordan.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff-former minority shareholder's securities fraud claims alleging that defendant-insiders purchased stock by making a tender offer through a shell corporation without disclosing any information about defendant-company's financial state, is: 1) vacated as to the dismissal of plaintiff's insider trading claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and of her pendent non-federal claims for breach of fiduciary duty, where the duty of corporate insiders to either disclose material non-public information or abstain from trading is defined by federal common law and applies to unregistered securities, and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's insider trading claims; but 2) affirmed as to the dismissal of her market manipulation claims, and of her insider trading claims under section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act.

(United States First Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in a class action brought by plaintiff-stockholders challenging the fairness of a corporate merger is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in light of plaintiffs' Affidavit outlining the discovery they needed to respond to the dispositive motion; and 2) plaintiffs should have been afforded the opportunity to conduct additional discovery.

(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 tort action brought by a court-appointed receiver against defendant accountants who audited the financial statements of PEMGroup, whose former directors and managers defrauded $950 million from investors, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed where the receiver failed to raise a genuine issues as to causation by failing to show that the involved companies or its investors relied on the audits at issue.

(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.

(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

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's order reinstating the Gurneys, the producers of Duck Dynasty, to positions managing the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff company that they once owned and are the minority owners of, who had been fired from their roles as CEOs and removed from management, because the very operating agreement the Gurneys said gave them authority to manage actually gave the company, through its board, the ultimate authority and allowed them to remove the Gurneys from management, but affirming the preliminary injunction allowing them to continue as board members and barring the company from infringing their rights in that position.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a shareholder derivative action for failure to show demand futility in a suit where shareholders of a company who brought suit for breach of fiduciary duties for failing to disclose manufacturing and design defects in the company's solar panels without making a demand to the board.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

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

(NY Supreme Court) - 527275

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(PA Supreme Court) - No. 22 WAP 2018 No. 23 WAP 2018

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that an insurance company timely removed an insurance coverage case to federal court by filing a notice of removal within the statutory 30-day time limit. The clock began to run only when the insurance company actually received the insured's complaint, not when its statutorily designated agent did.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to arbitrate a former employee's claims before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), an entity with which the company had severed ties. The FINRA arbitration code no longer applied to the company, even though the employee had once been registered as a securities industry representative of the company.