(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed sanctions imposed against a defense attorney for filing a frivolous motion seeking prevailing party attorney fees. Held that it was baseless for the attorney to argue that his client was the prevailing party under the Copyright Act, in a case where his client had agreed to pay a monetary settlement to resolve a copyright infringement claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.

(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 Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement lawsuit against the real estate website Zillow, reversed a judgment after a jury trial, in part. A photography studio claimed that Zillow violated its copyrights in photographs of homes.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees in a Copyright and Lanham Act lawsuit after they prevailed by asserting a collateral estoppel defense. Affirmed the award of fees.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed that a business owner contributorily infringed copyrighted photographs by displaying them on his website. However, remanded for further proceedings on whether the infringement was willful.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived a media company's claim that a popular website infringed its copyright in certain photographs of famous celebrities. The website, which enables users to create and share digital photo collages, has a clipper tool that lets users clip images from other websites. Reversed summary judgment in relevant part, in this case involving the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a textile company's copyright infringement claims accusing certain competitors of illegally copying its floral lace designs. Reversed dismissals.

(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) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. This appeal presents a question of the scope of statutory damages recoverable under the Copyright Act of 1976. The Act permits the recovery, instead of actual damages, of an award of statutory damages for all infringements of one work. The question is what constitutes “one work” for the purposes of the statute. The appeals court found error in the trial court’s determination that 33 illustrations constituted “one work” and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed. Concluding the musical works at issue were not works made for hire, the panel reverses the district court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of the defendant.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed. Finding the plaintiff failed to name a single instance of infringement or breach of the terms of his licensing agreement with the stock photo company from which Scholastica obtained his photos, the panel affirms the district court’s dismissal.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Denied the federal government's petition for mandamus to stop a lawsuit alleging that the government is ignoring the dangers of climate change. This lawsuit was brought by a number of children and young adults who accuse federal officials of violating their due process rights by failing to take action to address climate change. Having previously denied the government's first mandamus petition, the panel concluded that no new circumstances justify this second mandamus petition and the case is currently set for trial.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated the denial of an exemption from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's renewable fuel standard program. A small refinery sought an extension of its exemption from EPA's renewable fuel standard program, which requires refineries and other facilities to allocate a certain percentage of their fuel production to renewable fuels. When the EPA denied the request for an extension, the refinery petitioned the Fourth Circuit, which concluded that the EPA's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The panel therefore vacated the EPA's denial and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Natural Gas Act. Landowners along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline brought this action disputing the constitutionality of various provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Agreeing with the district court, the Fourth Circuit held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the landowners ought to have brought their claims through the agency review process laid out in the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act challenge to the construction of a natural gas pipeline across a religious organization's land. A Roman Catholic religious order brought suit to prevent the pipeline from being erected across its land, claiming that this would be contrary to its deeply held religious beliefs regarding its obligations in caring for the Earth as God's creation. However, the Third Circuit held that RFRA cannot be used to circumvent the prescribed review procedure for challenging pipeline projects, under which an objecting party must first seek rehearing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which the religious order had not done.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated federal agency decisions approving construction of a natural gas pipeline through a national forest. Several environmental groups challenged the Bureau of Land Management's and U.S. Forest Service's rulings allowing the pipeline to be built. On a petition for review, the Fourth Circuit agreed with the environmental groups that the federal agencies failed to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the Mineral Leasing Act, and the National Forest Management Act, and therefore the appeals court vacated and remanded to the agencies for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Denied a legal challenge filed by environmental groups seeking to prevent the construction of a natural gas pipeline across part of Virginia. The environmental groups argued that the Commonwealth of Virginia had improperly certified that the pipeline project would not degrade the state's water. Unpersuaded, the Fourth Circuit, which had jurisdiction over the case by federal statute, concluded that Virginia's issuance of a Clean Water Act certification was not arbitrary and capricious, and thus denied the environmental groups' petition for review.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacated actions taken by two federal agencies that provided necessary approvals for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. When the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service granted certain environmental authorizations that were needed to construct the 600-mile pipeline, which is designed to transport natural gas from West Virginia to the eastern portions of Virginia and North Carolina, environmental groups filed a petition for review of the agencies' actions. Agreeing with the environmental groups that both agency decisions were arbitrary and capricious, the Fourth Circuit vacated both administrative rulings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(United States Third Circuit) - Rejected challenges to a natural gas pipeline project but remanded on one issue. Local governments and an environmental organization argued that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving a proposed interstate pipeline expansion, but the Third Circuit rejected this argument. However, on a separate issue, the panel remanded to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection with instructions to reconsider the petitioners' request for an adjudicatory hearing.

(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) - Held that the owner of a tugboat was also considered to be operating an oil barge that the tugboat was moving at the time the barge collided with a bridge, resulting in an oil spill in the Mississippi River. Affirmed partial summary judgment for the federal government in its lawsuit seeking to recover cleanup costs under the Oil Pollution Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a company surveying the ocean floor was properly apportioned 75 percent of the liability for an accident in which its underwater sonar device struck an offshore drilling rig's mooring line. The remaining 25 percent of the liability was allocated to the operator of the chartered vessel that was pulling the sonar device. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by individuals and associations located in Mexico that relied on the fishing industry as a primary source of income, citing noncompliance with certain procedures ordered by the district court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a citizen group's claim that a city failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act when it authorized a utility company to remove more than 250 trees within its local natural gas pipeline rights-of-way. Reversed an order sustaining the city's demurrer, in relevant part.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the sentence of a defendant who pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a case arising out of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, held that a detrimentally impacted seafood business's monetary award under a court supervised settlement program was not properly calculated. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bunker (marine fuel) supplier was potentially entitled to assert a maritime lien against certain vessels to which it had physically provided marine fuel for which it was not paid, under an exception to the usual subcontractor rule. The exception allows maritime liens to be asserted by subcontractors whose selection was controlled or directed by a vessel's owner/charterer. Vacated and remanded on this issue.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a bunker (marine fuel) supplier was not entitled to maritime liens against two chartered vessels to which it had physically provided marine fuel for which it was not paid. Affirmed the district court, in a case raising the question whether subcontractors were entitled to maritime liens.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that it could not be decided on summary judgment whether interests in several oil and gas drilling projects qualified as securities, as the Securities and Exchange Commission insisted they were. The SEC brought this civil enforcement action against several companies that sold the interests to investors without first registering them as securities. Reversed a summary judgment ruling and remanded.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an energy company could not proceed with its claim that Illinois environmental regulators lacked jurisdiction over its handling of hazardous‐waste acid that it transported into the state. Affirmed a dismissal based on claim and issue preclusion, among other doctrines.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that energy companies emerging from bankruptcy did not have to pay certain creditors a contractual make-whole amount, even though the companies were now solvent due to a rise in commodity prices. Vacated and remanded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an industry challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. A number of industry trade groups argued that the California regulations designed to reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions violate the Commerce Clause or other parts of the federal constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a worker on an offshore oil platform could not proceed with his California law claim that he was denied overtime pay. The claim was preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Affirmed the dismissal, in relevant part, of his proposed class action.

(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 the bankruptcy proceeding of a distributor of bulk petroleum products, held that a consignor's unperfected security interest in fuel and monetary proceeds was subordinate to the trustee's interest. Affirmed the judgment below.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed that a nonprofit organization was entitled to compensation under a settlement program that oil company BP established following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the claims administrator's decision.

(United States Supreme Court) - This case involved the State of Washington's tax on fuel importers who travel by public highway. The Yakama Nation contended that its 1855 treaty with the United States forbids that tax from being imposed upon fuel importers who are tribal members. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the tribe. Justice Breyer's plurality opinion was joined by only two other justices. Justices Gorsuch and Ginsburg concurred in the judgment.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a professional basketball player was not entitled to compensation for his alleged lost earnings resulting from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A player for the New Orleans Hornets (now known as the New Orleans Pelicans) claimed that the spill indirectly impacted his earnings under a previously negotiated contract. On BP's appeal, the Fifth Circuit overturned the award approved by a settlement claims administrator.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer was entitled to millions of dollars in compensation for losses attributable to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Upheld the decision of a settlement program administrator, which was challenged by oil company BP.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a jury's finding that an investor was defrauded by an oil exploration company, which used his investment only to pay off preexisting debts. Affirmed the judgment, in relevant part.