(MN Court of Appeals) - A19-1561

(United States Federal Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, partially vacating, and remanding a case in which the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appealed a decision of the US Court of International Trade affirming the scope of the US Department of Commerce ruling holding that Whirlpoo's kitchen appliance door handles with end caps don't fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

(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 Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reversed where plaintiff's stated claims under the Lanham Act, alleging false advertising and unfair competition, were sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

(United States Eleventh Circuit) - Judgment against plaintiffs on their claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, and unjust enrichment, and judgment for one counter-claimant that a settlement agreement barred plaintiffs from bringing the present suit, are affirmed, as plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Where plaintiffs failed to file a postverdict motion regarding the settlement, they cannot raise it on appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - In suit alleging dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising regarding a kitchen device known as the "Tartmaster," order granting directed verdict for defendants on trade dress claims, and finding for defendants on other claims are affirmed as there was no error or abuse of discretion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation. (Amended opinion)

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Judgment holding defendant's asserted design patent for slippers known as Snoozies, invalid on summary judgment and also dismissing defendant's trade dress claims with prejudice is: 1) reversed as to the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, where the district court made multiple errors in its obviousness and functionality analysis; and 2) vacated as to the dismissal of defendant's trade dress claims, and remanded for the Court to reconsider its decision denying defendant's request to amend the pleadings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that insurance companies had a duty to provide a defense to a footwear wholesaler that was being sued in an intellectual property case for offering for sale certain infringing slippers. The insurance policy covered advertising injuries, and advertising included offering for sale.

(United States Federal Circuit) - This appeal is from a series of patent infringement cases against the US claiming that the Freedom-class ships infringe on certain patents owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed the court of Federal Claims grant of the Government Motion for Summary Judgement and the damages calculations of FastShip, LLC v. US. (2017) 131 Fed Cl. 592. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of the summary judgement motion for the government and modified the damage award to plaintiff.

(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.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a contracts action arising from a dispute over the auction sale of a syndicated loan, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where the lack of a written sales agreement and plaintiffs' failure to submit a timely cash deposit were not conditions precedent to the formation of the parties' contract and do not render their agreement unenforceable.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Police officers who could not recall making a Terry stop of three black men in a grey sedan following a nearby shooting were entitled to qualified immunity because the description of the shooter was close enough to justify the stop.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. In the case of a man who alleged a constitutional violation related to his injuries while in custody, the dismissal of all federal claims for failure to state a claim affirmed, as was the decision not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a Texas law claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a school district could impose school impact fees on an agricultural company's new residential housing complex even though it was intended to house only adult seasonal farmworkers. Reversed the decision below.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a property owner whose property has been taken by a local government may go directly to federal court to assert a claim under the Takings Clause. Overruled a 1985 Supreme Court precedent (Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City), which had said that a property owner must first seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the 5-4 Court.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an administrative ruling that terminated the Supplemental Security Income benefits of an individual who had received them since childhood for an intellectual disorder. The plaintiff disputed the medical evidence that the Social Security Administration relied on in concluding that he was no longer disabled after he turned age 18. Finding merit in his arguments, the First Circuit held that the record was insufficient to conclude he was no longer disabled.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that an individual who applied for Social Security disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income was not entitled to them because he was not disabled by bipolar disorder and alcohol addiction.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Declined to hear a challenge to Treasury Offset Program regulations. A law firm ended up with nothing in legal fees because the government administratively offset fees awarded to its Social Security recipient clients under the Equal Access to Justice Act against the clients' various debts to the government. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the offset matter was better suited for a separate action under the Administrative Procedure Act, and declined to exercise ancillary jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the pertinent regulations.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a claimant seeking Social Security disability benefits had no absolute right to pose questions to a government-employed medical consultant who reviewed his medical file and assessed his physical limitations. Instead, the right to such questioning depends on a case-by-case assessment of the need for cross-examination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of Social Security disability benefits to a man with a back injury, rejecting his contention that the ALJ improperly discounted his treating physician's opinion and discredited his own testimony. Affirmed the district court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived a benefit applicant's claim that he was entitled to Social Security disability based on a degenerative back condition. Held that the administrative law judge failed to support her decision to discount the treating neurosurgeon's opinion. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration committed an error in denying disability benefits to a former hair stylist suffering from a host of medical problems, including degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia. The ALJ should have acquired a medical expert to review a consequential MRI report. Vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Social Security Act's 25 percent cap on attorney fees applies only to fees for court representation. The lower court erroneously applied the cap to the aggregate fees awarded for representation before both the agency and the court. Justice Thomas wrote the unanimous opinion, which resolved a circuit split regarding the fees that attorneys may charge Social Security claimants for representation. The decision relied on the plain meaning of the statute.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a man's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with whether he could perform his former job as a school bus monitor. Vacated the district court's judgment and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration made errors in evaluating a woman's eligibility for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue related to whether her bipolar disorder and other conditions limited her concentration, persistence and pace. Vacated and remanded to the agency for further proceedings.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that the Social Security Administration did not adequately explain why it denied a man's application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The issue had to do with residual function capacity. Reversed the district court's judgment and remanded to the federal agency.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the Social Security Administration's decision that an applicant was not entitled to disability insurance benefits because she was not disabled. Affirmed the district court's decision.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a disabled child was not entitled to retroactive social security disability payments for the first year of his life, before his mother applied for assistance. Also held that social security laws may constitutionally bar benefits before application.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Upheld the denial of an application for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income. The applicant contended, among other things, that the ALJ should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at the hearing.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a benefit claimant's challenge to a denial of Social Security disability benefits. She contended that the ALJ should have given more weight to the opinion of her treating physician. Vacated and remanded.

Phishing scammers need a little help scamming you!

Russian phishing scammers pretending to be the UPS, sending you a UPS Tracking number through FilesTube. Confused? Well we are!

Britis Airways E-ticket Phishing scam

A "buy two for the price of one" type of spammer.

Your Verizon Wireless bill from the IRS. Wow, they must be serious about collecting the outstanding amount, because they called fridaysug85 to do the collection!

The shortest phishing scam e-mail ever!

This phishing scammer decided to skip the normal mumbo jumbo and just send the phishing link.

Another lame attempt at defrauding honest tax-paying South Africans. These phishing scammers could have at least used a better logo in their e-mail.