(United States Tenth Circuit) - In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit for infringement of patents directed to a design for protective goggles used by military establishments, law enforcement agencies, hunters and shooters, district court's denial of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in applying the Second Circuit's heightened standard of proof of likelihood of success on the merits, instead of the Federal Circuit standard for consideration of whether to impose such relief.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trade dress action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there is a genuine fact issue as to whether plaintiff's manner for presenting results in its urine test report was functional under the Lanham Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part where a jury found that defendant had infringed on plaintiff's patents and had awarded damages based on the entire market value rule. The Federal Circuit court affirmed the infringement judgment, but vacated the damages award stating that the entire market value rule could not be used in this case.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a finding of patent claim invalidity relating to patent claims for a hairstyling device. In reversing, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in holding, on inter partes review, that the patent claims were invalid on grounds of anticipation and that the Board had mistakenly construed the claims more broadly than the description in the patent specification merited. On the correct claim construction, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were not anticipated.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated in part and affirmed in part. Plaintiff owns patents for making flameless candles. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that certain claims by plaintiff were unpatentable and some claims were time barred. The Federal Circuit vacated the time barred decision as to one of the claims and affirmed the Board’s decision as to the other claims.

(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) - Conviction for manslaughter is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors about their views on involuntary confessions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a negligence action, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where there is a material question as to whether the escape of defendant's calf onto the road was a proximate cause of decedent's death in car accident while she was trying to assist.

(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) - 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.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust suit brought by professional minor league baseball players, the district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed because professional minor league baseball is exempt from federal antitrust laws.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a ski area was not liable for injuries that a snowboarder suffered when she collided with a snowcat and snow-grooming tiller. The snowboarder, who was seriously hurt, argued that the ski resort was grossly negligent and thus liable for her injuries despite the liability waiver she had signed as part of her season-pass agreement. However, the Third Appellate District concluded that the operation of snow-grooming equipment on a snow run is an inherent risk of snowboarding and that there was no gross negligence, affirming summary judgment against her claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous. The motion was filed by the real parties in interest in a mandamus proceeding concerning permits for a real estate development project. Reversed a sanctions order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff performed framing work on a commercial building owned by Defendant. Plaintiff was not paid for his work and filed a mechanic’s lien. Defendant complained of problems with some of the framing and Plaintiff performed repair work. Plaintiff filed this action to foreclose on its mechanic’s lien. The trial court granted Defendant summary judgment ruling that the mechanic’s lien was filed prematurely, before Plaintiff had ceased work. The appeals court agreed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration was justified in imposing an assessment and penalty on a recipient of disability benefits who failed to report work activity. The benefit recipient disputed that his failure to report earnings was material. While rejecting his legal challenge, the Second Circuit held that the agency lacked substantial evidence to support the amounts of the assessment and penalty, and therefore vacated and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the State of Texas should not have been enjoined from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood facilities. Concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard of review, in this case involving the facilities' alleged noncompliance with accepted medical and ethical standards. Vacated a preliminary injunction and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. Plaintiff received over-payment of Social Security disability payments and the SSA sought to recoup the over-payment. Plaintiff claimed that the SSA collected the over-payment before considering plaintiff's waiver request. Plaintiff also filed for bankruptcy and lodged an adversarial proceeding against the SSA which the bankruptcy court dismissed. The issue for the Fifth circuit was whether the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims. The Fifth circuit ruled that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction and remanded to the bankruptcy court.

(United States Supreme Court) - On a question of administrative law, held that where the Social Security Administration Appeals Council has dismissed a request for review as untimely after a claimant has obtained a hearing from an ALJ on the merits, that dismissal qualifies as a final administrative decision so as to allow judicial review. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court.

Mr Larry Smith's rely to our questions.

From payroll to fax to a homicide suspect. Where do these spammers get their inspiration from?

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that members of the Crow Tribe retain a broad right under an 1868 Treaty to hunt on land that is now part of the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. One issue was whether the treaty hunting rights expired when Wyoming became a state. The U.S. Supreme Court, divided 5-4, ruled favorably to the Tribe. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to prevent the rebuilding of an equestrian facility following a fire by filing a petition to have the Coastal Commission to revoke the required coastal development permit on the grounds that the regulation used to make the decision was not interpreted correctly. The appeals court disagreed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff challenged a trial court ruling that a proposed development failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. The appeals court found that the trial court did not err in concluding that that the project failed to comply with the CEQA requirement of an accurate, stable, and finite project description.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, and vacating the district court's judgment after jury trial in favor of Oracle on its copyright claims against a provider of third party support, affirming judgments of infringement, but reversing judgment as to California and Nevada statutes that weren't violated by use of automated tools, reducing damages accordingly, and vacating the permanent injunction and reversing the award of attorney's fees.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming a district court judgment dismissing a copyright infringement suit brought by a producer of educational materials against FedEx for their duplication of the products on behalf of school districts, whose use was licensed as noncommercial, because the distinction between their use and FedEx's facilitation of their use should have been explicitly laid out in the license they gave the schools.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tech company's copyright infringement claims against a competitor. Held that claim preclusion did not bar the company from asserting copyright infringement claims that had accrued after its earlier patent infringement suit against the competitor.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a complaint challenging Oregon's Clean Fuels Program, which regulates the production and sale of transportation fuels based on greenhouse gas emissions. Industry trade groups filed this suit alleging that the Oregon program violates the Commerce Clause and is preempted by the Clean Air Act. Finding the allegations not plausible, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the trade groups' complaint.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance coverage dispute arising from a leak in an underground fuel storage tank, affirmed in part and reversed in part. The insurer sought a declaratory judgment that it did not owe coverage because the insured had breached the Cooperation Clause in its policy, among other things.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that individuals who worked for an oil drilling firm were properly classified as independent contractors, not employees. Reversed a summary judgment that had been granted in their favor on their Fair Labor Standards Act misclassification claim, and rendered judgment for the drilling firm.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action in which plaintiff challenged, on First Amendment grounds, California Business and Professions Code Section 25503(f)-(h), which forbids manufacturers and wholesalers of alcoholic beverages from giving anything of value to retailers for advertising their alcoholic products, the district court's summary judgment to agency-defendant is reversed where plaintiff, a middleman involved in the advertising industry, had standing to challenge section 25503, because the Supreme Court's opinion in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2653 (2011), requires heightened judicial scrutiny of content-based restrictions on non-misleading commercial speech regarding lawful products, rather than the intermediate scrutiny previously applied to section 25503 by the Ninth Circuit in Actmedia, Inc. v. Stroh, 830 F.2d 957 (9th Cir.1986).

(United States First Circuit) - In a case that involves a man, his emotional support dog, and a condominium association's 'no pets' rule, alleging disability discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 3601-3619, the condominium association's petition for judicial review of a final order of the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is denied and the Secretary's cross-petition for enforcement of his order is granted where substantial evidence supports the Secretary's finding that the Association's refusal to allow the former condo owner to keep an emotional support dog in his condominium unit as a reasonable accommodation for his disability was unlawful.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a lawsuit alleging that federal agencies acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing plaintiffs' rulemaking petitions, which requested that each agency promulgate regulations that would require all egg cartons to identify the conditions in which the egg-laying hens were kept during production, the district court's summary judgment in favor of federal agencies is affirmed where: 1) the Food Safety and Inspection Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked authority to promulgate plaintiffs' proposed labeling regulations for shell eggs: 2) the Agricultural Marketing Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs’ rulemaking petition because the agency correctly concluded that it lacked the authority to promulgate mandatory labeling requirements for shell eggs; 3) the Federal Trade Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying plaintiffs' rulemaking petition; and 4) the Food and Drug Administration barely met its low burden to clearly indicate that it considered the potential problem identified in plaintiffs' petition, and provide a reasonable explanation for not initiating rulemaking.