(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Answering a certified question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court held that New York common law does not recognize a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings and answered the Second Circuit's question in the negative.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Convictions for using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence were remanded for resentencing after previous 7th Circuit opinions and the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Davis found the term "crime of violence" to be unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court did not violate the confrontation clause when it prevented defendants in an armed robbery prosecution from cross examining government witnesses about the specific prison terms they avoided through their cooperation with the government.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The court's imposition of conditions on supervised release could not be appealed as violations of due process rights by the convicted because they failed to object to them in district court and therefore waived the issue.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Those convicted for activities in connection with a New Orleans gang had their convictions vacated because Supreme Court precedent showed the residual clause of their convicting statute was unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A confession taken after prolonged solitary confinement did not violate Fifth Amendment rights.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An unconstitutional conviction did not occur when an attorney confirmed he no longer disputed restitution while in chambers but repeated this withdrawal in open court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant, a prior felon, was pulled over for a traffic stop. A drug-sniffing dog alerted on Defendants car. A search of the vehicle did not find drugs but did find a gun. Defendant was charged with felon-in-possession. Defendant was sentenced to 15 years. Defendant appealed on grounds that search was improper and error by trial court. Appellate court found no reversible error.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A state court gun possession finding was conclusive as to that factual point in a subsequent federal suit seeking damages for constitutional violations.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed. A motion to correct a 1996 sentence as a career offender was not timely because the motion asserts a right not recognized in caselaw.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil forfeiture case arising in the aftermath of a 1993 criminal prosecution in which claimant entered a guilty plea to a single count charging money laundering violations, seeking compensation for the government's alleged seizure of claimant's ownership interest in a professional basketball team franchise, the district court's judgment in favor of the government is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the court records suggests that the government seized the franchise when it obtained the restraining order to preserve the franchise as a potentially forfeitable asset; and 2) though that order effectively prevented the claimant from participating in the affairs of the franchise, it did not divest him of his proprietary interest.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a class action suit against the National Football League (NFL), brought by former players who alleged that the NFL failed to inform them of and protect them from the risks of concussions in football, the District Court's judgment is affirmed where the District Court was right to certify the class and approve the settlement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed summary judgment against private landowners in a dispute regarding the boundaries of a hiking and biking trail built along the path of an old railroad easement. The landowners, whose properties abutted the rail corridor, sued the county government to challenge the nature, scope, and width of the corridor covered by the easement. The county counterclaimed asking the court to quiet title. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit agreed that the county was entitled to prevail.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. Olympic Committee and USA Track and Field did not violate antitrust law by imposing advertising restrictions during the Olympic Trials. A chewing gum company that wished to pay to display its logo on athletes' apparel brought this suit to challenge the advertising restrictions. Rejecting the company's arguments, the Ninth Circuit held that the defendant organizations were entitled to implied antitrust immunity on the basis that their advertising restrictions were integral to performance of their duties under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a consumer's proposed class action lawsuit against a manufacturer of nutritional supplements. Held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not preempt the consumer's California law claims that the company made false or misleading statements about the source of the protein in one of its muscle-building products. Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a child who suffered head injuries while playing in a youth water polo league stated a claim that USA Water Polo acted negligently and unlawfully by failing to implement concussion-management and return-to-play protocols. Reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action brought by her parent on her behalf.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived claims brought by several African-American college basketball players that their head coach had engaged in race-based discrimination and retaliation. The players claimed that the coach reduced their playing time, afforded them fewer opportunities, punished them more severely and otherwise favored their teammates of other races. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part on their claims under title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a government contractor's claim for an equitable adjustment arising out of its fixed price indefinite delivery contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), the Court of Federal Claims' denial of the claim is reversed where: 1) the Claims Court's findings that DRMS did not inadequately or negligently prepare its estimates and that Agility did not rely on those estimates are clearly erroneous; and 2) Plaintiff’s receipt of scrap sales and the parties' agreement to clause H.19 do not preclude plaintiff from recovering under this claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the Contracting Officer's rejection of plaintiff's unsolicited proposal to the U.S. Department of the Navy's Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (IHEODTD) pursuant to 48 C.F.R. (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)) Subpart 15.6 (2015), the Claims Court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss is affirmed where there is lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (RCFC) because he lacked standing under 28 U.S.C. section 1491(b)(1) (2012).

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a breach of contract claim brought against the Government, the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted, because the Government has no contractual obligation to reimburse plaintiff's pension withdrawal liability costs that were incurred pursuant to the Multi-Employer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. section 1381, et seq.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a breach of contract action against the Government, the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government is affirmed where the contracts whereby plaintiff provides closing services for homes owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unambiguously preclude plaintiff from charging additional closing fees.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's appeal of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sections 2412(a) and (d)(1)(A) (2012), the Claims Court's conclusion that comments made by the Court during a hearing and prior to the Government taking corrective action materially altered the relationship between the parties such that plaintiff qualified as a 'prevailing party' under the EAJA, the award is reversed where a strong comment by a trial court is not tantamount to a ruling on the merits or a court order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a government contracts action claiming underpayment for outpatient medical services provided for current and former military service members, the Federal Claims Court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is reversed where plaintiffs are not barred by bringing a breach of contract claim by a release included in the contract the government is accused of breaching.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the conviction of a man for charges relating to a his procurement of government contracts for his construction company on the false pretense that the company was owned and controlled by military veterans who became disabled in connection with their military service.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the petition for mandamus by an insurer that had paid millions on an Employee Theft Insurance policy when the insured company was found to have engaged in corrupt activities such as obtaining bribes and kickbacks from subcontractors to a government contract it held because, even if they had overcome various procedural obstacles, the company's criminal conduct and, by extension, that of the insurer, precluded them from obtaining restitution from an implicated employee, but vacating and remanding an order dismissing the insurer's petition in the employee's forfeiture proceeding because the district court failed to determine whether the company's unclean hands kept it from an equitable remedy.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the Court of Federal Claims denying a motion for reconsideration of amended judgment or, in the alternative, relief from final judgment in a dispute relating to bidding on the procurement of medical gasses by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In this insurance law claim a health insurer contends that the US failed to satisfy its payment obligation under a federal health insurance pool program. The Court of Federal Claims entered judgement for the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment stating that Congress suspended the governments obligation and that subsequent regulation did not create a contract promising full payment.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal to determine meaning of special factor in 28 USC 2412(d)(2)(A), Equal Access to Justice Act. When special factor is found the statutory attorney fee rate is increased. The Claims Court found special factor existed in a bid protest claim where the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was stated to have acted arbitrarily and awarded plaintiff attorney fees increased by special factor. The Federal Court of Appeals held that the Claims Court erred and there was no special factor. Egregious misconduct by the HHS does not constitute a special factor.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed, in large part, an attorney fee award in a False Claims Act action that had been resolved by settlement. After the defendant agreed to settle the case, the plaintiff (qui tam relator) was entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees as a prevailing party. He appealed arguing that the district court's fee award was too low. The Third Circuit rejected his arguments and affirmed the award except in one narrow respect: on remand the trial court must decide how much to award him in fees for the time spent litigating his fee petition.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. government had breached certain World War II-era contracts with several oil companies. In this long-running litigation, the oil companies claimed that the federal government, which had sued them for hazardous waste cleanup, was partly liable for the cleanup costs due to language in their 1940s government contracts to produce aviation fuel for the war effort. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the oil companies and awarded them nearly $100 million in contract damages, collectively. The federal government appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a False Claims Act lawsuit had to be dismissed because it was not the first-filed case accusing the defendant pharmaceutical company of certain improper Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. The plaintiff (relator) argued that his action should be allowed to proceed because the earlier action was no longer pending. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit held that a violation of the first‐to‐file bar, which prohibits a person from bringing a related qui tam action when one is already pending, cannot be remedied by amending or supplementing the complaint. The panel reversed and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the voluntary dismissal of a qui tam action that a group of physicians brought against a company operating allergy treatment clinics. Over the company's objection, the physicians sought to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice as to themselves only, so that their decision to quit would not hamstring the government's efforts against the company elsewhere. The district court granted the dismissal motion, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the prevailing wage law applied here because the contractors (belt sorters at county recycling facilities) were engaged in public work. On a separate issue, addressed the statutory remedy for improperly shortening their meal periods by three to five minutes.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a former qui tam relator was not entitled to share in the government's recovery against a company under the False Claims Act in light of his prior voluntary dismissal of his qui tam action.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order voiding a default judgment on procedural grounds. Held that the complaint did not provide adequate notice to sustain a default because it failed to specify the amount of damages that the plaintiff was seeking, and instead merely prayed for "damages according to proof," in this lawsuit related to the construction of a hotel.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction business that ceased operations and cut off its pension contributions was subject to withdrawal liability under ERISA's Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of a labor union pension fund.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated a restitution order in a case where a woman stole veterans benefit payments that the government had mistakenly continued to send to her deceased mother. The defendant, who pleaded guilty to theft of government property, argued that restitution should be limited to monies stolen within the statute of limitations. The Second Circuit agreed with her, and therefore vacated in part the district court's restitution order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Amended an opinion filed on July 26, 2018 for a case which affirmed the defendant's conviction for mail and wire fraud, but vacated a custodial sentence and restitution with remand for further proceedings. The sentence was vacated because the record did not support the conclusion that the defendant exercised sufficient control over a co-conspirator. Restitution was vacated because the district court's ruling was internally inconsistent in ordering immediate payment and payments over time in the same order.