(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissed. The government appealed the district court’s granting in part of a motion to enforce a 1997 settlement agreement guaranteeing minors in the custody of immigration agencies be held in facilities that are safe and sanitary. The panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not modify the agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying motion to vacate conviction. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a person under age 16 for which he received probation. He was then taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and ordered removed. He admitted to violating his probation because he was in the custody of the INS and deported. He also married the victim and had two children by her. Defendant filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code 1473.7 which was denied by the trial court. The appeals court held that the trials court’s order must be reversed because the motion was denied based on untimeliness and without the presence of the defendant or his counsel.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The Oklahoma misdemeanor of transporting a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle is not one of the firearms offenses listed in the USC making an alien statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. Finding that non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 USC Section 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings, the immigration judge deprived Zuniga of his right to counsel by failing to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. The panel held that petitioner’s reliance on his lawyer’s erroneous advice that he was not required to update his fingerprints was reasonable and constituted “good cause” to grant a continuance, and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A sentence following a guilty plea for illegal reentry was proper because assault-family violence qualifies as a crime of violence and is therefore an aggravated felony.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding the record did not compel the conclusion that police officers did not persecute Singh on account of his imputed political opinions, the panel concluded his asylum claim fails.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Even if an attorney's failure to object to a question about his immigration status during a murder trial had been ineffectual assistance it was not prejudicial.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court denied Plaintiff’s national-interest waiver petition for lack of jurisdiction. Affirming, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national-interest waiver.

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 81

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 83

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 85

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 92

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 93

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 24

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 25

(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 26

(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.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe in a case where the plaintiffs alleged that the U.S. government had caused a compensable taking by barring repairs to forest-fire-damaged roads which provided the only means to access their patented mining and homestead claims within the Santa Fe National Forest. In finding that their regulatory taking case was not yet ripe for review, the appeals court noted that plaintiffs had not yet applied for a permit to reconstruct the forest roads.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of no liability in a trade secret misappropriation case where a jury found that a competitor did not steal Raytheon's trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. Raytheon appealed but the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the company's JMOL and new-trial motions, and also affirmed denial of the competitor's motion for attorney fees.

(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) - Affirmed the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of class action employment law claims brought by independent contractors working for the government-funded broadcast service Voice of America. The contractors alleged that they should have been appointed to positions in the civil service or retained through personal-services contracts instead of working under purchase order vendor contracts that provided less in the way of compensation and benefits. In affirming the dismissal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the trial court's finding that plaintiffs had set forth no viable theory of recovery.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated a patent noninfringement judgment based on an erroneous construction of the patent's language. The sole issue on appeal concerned a patent pertaining to energy efficient lighting apparatuses and what precisely was meant by the words attachment surface. Because the district court had adopted an erroneous construction of those words, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings.

(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 Federal Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of overtime compensation claims brought by a special agent of the U.S. Secret Service. In a class action complaint, the plaintiff special agent argued that Office of Personnel Management regulations improperly required that certain overtime hours be worked consecutively in order to trigger compensation. Agreeing with his position, the Federal Circuit held that the challenged OPM regulations were contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the relevant statute. The panel thus reversed in relevant part and remanded.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain computer-related patent claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In this patent infringement case, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent claims at issue failed under the abstract idea exception, because the claims lacked any arguable technical advance over conventional computer and network technology. The patent claims here related to a way to display two sets of information, in a non-overlapping way, on a display screen.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the trial court's ruling for plaintiff which had sued the US for additional grant money for alternative energy projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The US appealed arguing that it had overpaid plaintiff. In vacating, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in finding for the plaintiff and it remanded to re-examine the government’s calculation method.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the trial court's decision which had denied Plaintiff's challenge to the Patent Board’s denial of its patent. The government sought to recover costs and attorney’s fees under section 145 of the Patent Act. The trial court held that costs may be recovered under section 145, but not attorney fees.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the Patent Board's prior ruling against plaintiff which had filed suit to challenge the defendant’s proposed patent. In vacating and remanding, the Appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s printed catalog was prior art and that the defendant’s proposed patent could have been based on information in that catalog and that the trial court had not properly considered the catalog in making its finding.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a teacher working for the U.S. Department of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools failed to file a timely petition for review of a decision removing her from the federal service. The teacher, who argued that her procedural due process rights were violated when she was fired from her job teaching on a military base, petitioned for review of an arbitrator's decision. However, the Federal Circuit concluded that her petition for review was not timely filed and thus dismissed it.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of an importer's challenge to an import duty levied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The company argued that the correct duty rate on its imported light-emitting diode (LED) candles was 2 percent rather than 3.9 percent. On appeal from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the LED candles fell within a classification that was subject to a 3.9 percent import duty. The panel thus affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a veteran's surviving spouse who had litigated over certain benefits was not entitled to an award of attorney fees. The spouse of a deceased World War II veteran argued that she had prevailed on her benefit claims and thus was entitled to recover her attorney fees pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. On appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Federal Circuit held that she had not obtained a sufficiently successful result to qualify as a prevailing party for purposes of the attorney fee statute.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of several patents related to systems and methods for indexing information stored in wide access databases. The district court agreed with the defendant and held all asserted claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. section 101.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part. Rembrandt filed numerous patent infringement actions against dozens of cable companies. After years of litigation, the district entered final judgment against Rembrandt for all claims. Cable company defendants filed a motion for attorney fees. The district court issued an order declaring the case exceptional and granting more than $51 million in fees. Rembrandt appealed the award. The Federal Circuit affirmed the exceptional case determination, but vacated and remanded the fees award for further analysis of the connection between the fees and the plaintiff’s misconduct.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed finding of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that plaintiff had violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing components of automated teller machines that infringed on certain patents. The court reasoned that the term “cheque standby unit” is a means-plus-function term and lacks corresponding structure disclosed in the specification.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Remanded with instructions to dismiss, in a case where the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in determining that certain claims were not time-barred under 35 USC section 314.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action. A jury found that the defendant infringed on both asserted claims and that neither claim was invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of plaintiff’s infringement claims, but stated that plaintiff’s theory of infringement of other claims was inadequate to support the judgment of infringement and therefore reversed on that claim.

(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 Federal Circuit) - Reversed and remanded where the plaintiff appealed from a judgment of the Court of Federal Claims which had dismissed his complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. In reversing and remanding, the Federal Circuit held that the court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Denied petitions for writ of mandamus. Plaintiff sought a writ challenging the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denying the institution of inter partes review of claims from three patents owned by Semiconductor Components industries, LLC.

(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.