(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Stay of the district court order granting Plaintiffs injunction is not warranted. Plaintiffs sued Defendants to enjoining them from reprogramming funds from the Department of Defense toward building a barrier along our country’s southern border. The appeals court concluded that Plaintiffs have a strong likelihood that they will prevail in this litigation.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff, a citizen group, sued Defendant, a city, claiming the city violated zoning law and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving a certain development. The trial court found the development consistent with CEQA and denied Plaintiff’s writ of mandate petition.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition denied. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry was permitted because the agency's interpretation of "risk" received deference and their decision not to regulate was authorized.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(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.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied. A petition by environmental associations whose members live and work in areas affected by the Atlantic Sunrise Project allowing natural gas pipeline expansion was denied because challenges to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission couldn't submit the deferential standard of review of their determinations and due to binding circuit precedent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(United States DC Circuit) - Granted in part. In a petition to review an order loosening regulations to allow microcell transmission towers supporting cell phone reception to be built on or near Native American cultural sites, the FCC's determination that it wasn't in the public interest to review small cell deployment was arbitrary and capricious.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. The City of San Diego authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. It decided that the dispensaries did not constitute a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, so an environmental review was not necessary. Plaintiff challenged the failure to conduct an environmental review. The appeals court agreed with the City’s assessment. The Supreme court ruled that an improper test was applied under Public Resources Code section 21065 to determine whether a review was necessary or not. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

(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 Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(Supreme Court of California) - Remanded. The Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy from Defendant that covered pollution conditions. The policy required notice of any pollution condition and written consent before incurring obligations. Defendant denied coverage for pollution conditions that were found at a dormitory construction site because the policy notice and consent provisions were violated. The Court held that the notice-prejudice rule, which allows insureds to proceed against their insurer even if notice is late as long as it does not substantially prejudice the insurer, is a fundamental public policy of California and applies to consent provisions in first-party liability coverage and not third-party coverage. Remanded to the Ninth Circuit to determine type of policy involved.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Dismissed. The Center for Biological Diversity lacked standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's issuance of a permit that will lead to increased pollution in the Gulf of Mexico.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright dispute arising out of photographs posted online on defendant's social media website, the district court's summary judgment that defendant was entitled protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is reversed where: 1) the safe harbor set forth in 17 U.S.C. section 512(c) would apply if the photographs were posted at the direction of users; 2) defendant posted the photographs after a team of volunteer moderators, led by an employee of the defendant, reviewed and approved them; 3) the common law of agency applied to the defendant's safe harbor defense; and 4) there were genuine factual disputes regarding whether the moderators were the defendant's agents.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In the appeal of a breach of contract and copyright infringement case involving the movie 'The Purge,' the district court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion to strike a state law claim for breach of implied-in-fact contract, is affirmed where the breach of contract claim did not arise from an act in furtherance of the right of free speech since the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a preliminary injunction against a company whose business involved purchasing physical copies of copyrighted movie and television shows, censoring objectionable content, and then ripping digital copies of their edited versions to stream to customers because the Family Movie Act and the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act did not permit the defendant's activities.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming summary judgment to the defendant schoolbook publisher against a stock photography agency complaining of copyright infringement because they were nonexclusive licensing agents for the photos at issue and failed to demonstrate adequate ownership interest to confer standing.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a civil procedure action, arising from a copyright infringement action brought by plaintiffs, American companies in the natural foods industry, against defendant, a UK limited company, after defendant sent an email newsletter containing plaintiffs' logos to 343 email addresses, the district court's dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed where defendant's suit-related conduct did not create a substantial connection with California.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - Affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding a case alleging copyright infringement seeking to hold a high-speed internet provider contributorily responsible for infringement of a music publisher's copyrights, affirming the trial court's determination that the defense was not entitled to a safe harbor defense, but reversing, vacating, and remanding on account of errors in jury instructions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment to the defense in a Copyright Act infringement case centered on a pen and ink depiction of two dolphins whose creator claimed a painting of two dolphins was copied because the panel found that the idea was simply drawn from nature and that expressing ideas that nature has already expressed for all cannot result in copyright.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defense in a copyright case where the assignee of certain photographs tried to sue the owner for infringement for exceeding its licensed use of certain photographs taken by photographers who had a non-exclusive licensing agreement with them because the Copyright Act doesn't permit prosecution of infringement suits by assignees that have never been the legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right to the intellectual property.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought by a photographer against Nike who commissioned its own photograph, similar to the photographer's, for use in the creation of the Jumpman logo because although the photo could sustain copyright the pose in the picture could not and the logo was not substantially similar to the photo.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversing a district court order finding fair use in the case of a company that enables clients to view and distribute ten-minute clips of television and radio programs produced by others because whether or not the snippets served a transformational purpose the provision of virtually all of Fox's copyrighted content deprived Fox of copyright revenue and could not be justified as fair use.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a district court summary judgment in favor of the defense and denying attorney fees in a copyright case involving a pornographer who alleged that infringing clips were stored and displayed on the defendant's website because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a safe harbor for material stored by users without the knowledge or input of the owner, who expeditiously removed infringing material when notified and did not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to infringing activity they had the right and ability to control.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Largely affirming the decision against Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke in a suit brought by the estate of Marvin Gaye over copyright infringement in the song Blurred Lines, but reversing the district court's decision to overturn the jury's general verdict in favor of certain parties because the defendants had waived any challenge to the consistency of the jury's general verdicts.

(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 Federal Circuit) - Reversing a district court determination that Google's use of Oracle's Java Standard Edition platform programming interface in its Android operating system was fair use and decisions denying Oracle's motion for judgment as a matter of law and remanding for a determination of damages.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of claims brought by a monkey, the continuation of the fascinating Monkey Selfie suit, holding that while the monkey had constitutional standing to bring suit, he lacked statutory standing to claim copyright infringement because the Copyright Act doesn't expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of rapper Jay-Z and other defendants in the case of copyright infringement claims brought by the heir to an Egyptian composer's copyright on the arrangement of a song used as a sample in the hit single 'Big Pimpin' because the heri lacked standing to bring copyright claims. The rights had been transferred by an earlier agreement and Egyptian law recognizes a transferable right of adaptation.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of a state law accounting claim and otherwise vacating and remanding the case of a musical group called Sly Slick & Wicked who challenged the collection of royalties during the renewal period of the copyright of their song, entitled Sho' Nuff, which had been sampled by Justin Timberlake and J. Cole because their repudiation of the original terms of the copyright many years earlier did not also constitute a repudiation of the renewal terms, resulting in a time-bar to their claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this copyright law case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs, professional photographers, alleged that defendants removed copyright information metadata from their photographs in violation of 17 USC section 1202(b)(1)-(3). Section 1202 requires defendants to have known the prohibited act would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Plaintiffs were unable to offer evidence to satisfy this requirement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In this copyright and attorney fees case the 9th Circuit affirmed the Central District Court opinion awarding attorneys fees to defendants under 17 USC section 505. Plaintiff file suit claiming copyright infringement and breach of implied contract alleging that the film, Walk of Shame, was copied from a screenplay given to the defendants seven years before the film was released. The District Court found that there was no substantial similarity between the screen play and the film and dismissed the federal copyright claim with prejudice and dismissed the state law contract claim without prejudice. Defendants filed a motion for attorneys fees and costs which was granted. The 9th Circuit, finding no abuse of discretion affirmed the attorney fee award.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in relevant part, finding that federal copyright law largely preempts California's Resale Royalties Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 986, which grants artists a right to five percent of the proceeds on any resale of their artwork under specified circumstances.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Reversed the district court's ruling which had denied immunity to North Carolina state agencies and officials which were sued by a videographer alleging that they violated his copyrights by publishing his video footage of an 18th-century shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Plaintiff had obtained the rights to create the footage through a permit issued by North Carolina to the ship's salvors. Disagreeing with the district court's rulings on a motion to dismiss, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the defendant agencies and officials were protected from the lawsuit by sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and/or legislative immunity.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of copyright infringement. In an amended opinion, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the decision after a jury trial that musician Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and Clifford Harris Jr.'s song Blurred Lines, the world's best-selling single in 2013, infringed the copyright in a 1977 Marvin Gaye song, Got To Give It Up. The panel also held that the award of actual damages and infringers' profits and its running royalty were proper.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the denial of attorney's fees in a copyright infringement case. A man agreed to pay $750 in statutory damages to a film production company for illegally downloading a movie using a peer-to-peer network and distributing it 80 times, and the parties agreed that the court would decide whether to award attorney's fees. When the court denied fees, the production company appealed. Agreeing with the company, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court failed to correctly apply certain factors in deciding whether to award attorney fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated claims for violation of California law copyrights possessed in certain musical performance sound recordings. The plaintiff copyright holders argued that their decision to remaster their pre-1972 analog sound recordings onto digital formats did not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law. Agreeing with the plaintiffs that their state law copyright claims were not preempted, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant radio broadcasters.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought against an individual who allegedly downloaded and distributed (i.e., pirated) a movie through peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks. The individual argued that he was not liable for infringement even if the infringing Internet Protocol (IP) address was his, because multiple individuals could connect via his IP address. Agreeing with him and noting that he operated an adult foster care home, the Ninth Circuit held that the complaint failed to state a claim of either direct or contributory infringement.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated sports photographers' copyright infringement claims against the National Football League and the Associated Press. Seven photographers who make a living taking photos of NFL events alleged that thousands of their photos were exploited without a license and without compensating them in any way. Vacating in part and remanding, the Second Circuit held that some of the photographers' claims were plausibly pleaded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reinstated musical recording owners' claims that radio broadcasters violated their state law copyrights in pre-1972 analog sound recordings that were later remastered onto digital formats. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the broadcasters and also reversed the striking of the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an Egyptian musical composer's heir could not sue the rapper Jay-Z and other defendants for copyright infringement. Jay- Z had sampled the composer's 1957 musical arrangement in one of his hit songs. Affirmed judgment as a matter of law for the defendants, concluding that the composer's heir lacked standing.