(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 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) - 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 a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(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.

Hundreds of football fans are expected to descend on Ashfield on Friday morning, when Portugal take on Poland in the quarter-final of UEFA Euro 2016.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the doctrine of laches barred a woman from seeking to recover a painting by Pablo Picasso hanging in New York City's Metropolitan Museum of Art. The painting once belonged to her ancestors, German Jews who fled the Nazi regime. Affirmed a dismissal based on undue delay in bringing the lawsuit.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed an art museum's title to two oil paintings that the Nazis had stolen from the plaintiff's father-in-law during World War II. The plaintiff sued the museum to recover the two Renaissance masterpieces, but the museum insisted it had good title because the Dutch government validly conveyed the paintings after the war to the person who sold them to the museum. Concluding that the act-of-state doctrine applied here, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the museum.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the mother of a U.S. Army service member who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq did not state a claim against a Germany-based bank. She claimed that the bank was responsible for her son's death under the Anti-Terrorism Act because it had conspired with Iran by evading U.S. banking sanctions. She contended that the fatal bomb was a signature Iranian weapon. Affirmed that she did not plausibly plead a claim.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court was within its discretion to deny recognition to a Moroccan judgment against a haircare and liqour tycoon in a lawsuit relating to a failed energy provision agreement.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an excess insurer could not sue an insured's lawyers for negligent misrepresentation. The insurer claimed that the lawyers led it to believe that a product liability suit posed no threat of exposure to its policy. Concluding that the law firm was immune from suit under these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a media company was not a "consumer reporting agency" subject to the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. A job applicant alleged that the company's subscription‐based online research platform erroneously showed that he had been previously convicted of theft. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the media company.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued former employee alleging several business torts including unfair competition and trespass to chattel. Appeals court held that trespass to chattel in business does not establish that the party engaged in an unlawful business practice under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Affirmed in favor of Defendant.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that a city's practice of annually transferring funds from a city-operated electric utility to the city's general fund did not run afoul of the California Constitution, which prohibits local governments from imposing any tax without voter approval. A citizen association brought this suit arguing that the city was, in effect, using utility rates to impose a tax without voter approval. Rejecting this contention, the California Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal.

(United States Supreme Court) - Vacating and remanding the Second Circuit's support of a motion to dismiss a complaint relating to allegations that Chinese sellers of Vitamin C were engaged in price and quantity fixing of exports to the US because although the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China averred that the alleged price fixing scheme was actually a pricing regime mandated by the Chinese Government the court was not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government's statements. No law or regulation had been cited and a foreign nation's laws must be proven as facts.

(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 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) - 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 a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.

(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.

Stock market spammers are at it again. This time promoting the R.C.H.A stock.

Stock market spammers still trying to push this stock.

(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 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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought by operators of recycling centers where beverage containers sold in California may be redeemed for their California Redemption Value, against companies that sell or distribute beverages containers in California, contending that defendants knowingly and "falsely" label beverage containers sold both inside and outside California with "CA CRV," "California Redemption Value," or similar labels when, in fact, under California law, only containers purchased inside California may be redeemed in California, and alleging common law tort claims against defendants for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, strict products liability, interference with prospective economic advantage and business relations, and breach of express warranty, the trial court's judgment of dismissal is affirmed where the injunctive and compensatory relief plaintiffs seek cannot be awarded by a California court because it would violate the "dormant" commerce clause of the federal Constitution.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing a district court order decertifying a class action relating to an alleged aphrodisiac called 'Cobra Sexual Energy' because the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class on the basis of the plaintiff's inability to prove restitution damages through the full refund model because plaintiff's damages model matched his theory of liability and because his damages model was supportable on evidence that could be introduced on trial and whether plaintiff could provide damages to a reasonable certainty on the basis of his full refund model was a question of fact to be decided at trial.

(Supreme Court of California) - Affirming the Court of Appeals determination that the manufacturer of a name brand drug whose labeling directs the warnings provided on its generic bioequivalent's packaging owes a duty of reasonable care to the consumers of the generic drug and that the liability for potential negligence doesn't automatically terminate upon transfer of the company's rights in the name brand drug to a successor manufacturer.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the District Court's determination that a proposed generic nasal spray would not infringe the patents of a company manufacturing the Nasonex nasal product.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Partly affirming, partly vacating, and remanding the district court dismissal of a False Claims Act action brought against three pharmaceutical companies in a case involving off-label drug use and kickbacks to doctors because claims were substantially similar to those that had already been publicly disclosed, vacating to determine whether the situation qualified for the original source exception.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court dismissal of a case in which a class of purchasers of securities issued by a drug company that the investors said recklessly misled them about their target date for submitting an application to the Food and Drug Administration for a drug approval because the court did not err in finding that they had failed to state a claim.