(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark suit brought by a provider of healthcare services against a provider of digital health-related content, the District Court's injunction which prohibited defendant from using its marks within plaintiff’s geographic service area, but placed no restriction on defendant's use of its marks on the Internet or outside plaintiff's service area, is affirmed but remanded for expansion of the injunction's scope, where the current limitations placed on defendant were based on an incorrect standard and fail to give plaintiff and the public adequate protection from likely confusion.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a trademark infringement dispute between software companies over several trademarks containing the word 'collective,' the District Court's granted summary judgment to Cross Commerce Media on virtually all points in dispute and awarded attorney's fees under the Lanham Act are reversed in part where: 1) the unregistered mark 'collective' is suggestive, not descriptive; 2) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI used the unregistered mark 'collective' in commerce before CCM introduced its allegedly infringing marks; 3) the district court prematurely granted summary judgment as to CI's counterclaim for infringement of the registered marks, an action that neither party requested and the district court did not explain; and 4) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI abandoned its registered marks 'Collective Network' and 'Collective Video.' Award of attorney fees is vacated.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. Defendants sought disclosure, through a FOIA request, of names and addresses of retail stores who participated in the national food stamp program. Plaintiff refused to provide that information stating that substantive competitive harm would be caused. The district court disagreed with plaintiff and ordered disclosure. The US Supreme Court reversed and held that data provided under an assurance of privacy was an exemption to a FOIA request.

I absolutely *love* these Amazon Writing Style Tips (found via Google & ) Have any other companies offered a glimpse into their in-house style?

via Health News - The New York Times https://nyti.ms/2WLL65m

WHILE most players his age have jumped two or three clubs, Mitch Aubusson has stayed loyal to the Roosters and joined some exclusive company in the process.

(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 Third Circuit) - In this appeal considering whether defendant-prison-administrators are entitled to qualified immunity for an inmate's suicide, the district court's order denying summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs is affirmed, where defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity from an Eighth Amendment claim that serious deficiencies in the provision of medical care by a private, third-party provider led to the inmate's suicide.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a Veterinary Medical Board decision to take disciplinary action against a veterinarian for improperly treating four animal patients. Affirmed the denial of the veterinarian's petition for a writ of administrative mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sought to enforce a judgment against Defendant in the Senior courts of England and Wales. The issue on appeal was the admissibility of a certain document. The appeals court determined that the document was rightly admitted by the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2017–07383 (Index  12949/10) 12949/10

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Certified Question. The panel certified the question of state law to the Nevada Supreme Court asking whether an insurer is entitled reimbursement of costs already expended in defense of its insured where a determination has been made that the insurer owed no duty to defend and there was an agreement requiring reimbursement, but with no reservation of rights.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that even if Plaintiff’s obesity were an impairment under the ADA, or he suffered from a disabling knee condition, he could not show a causal relationship between these impairments and his termination. Summary judgement in favor of the defendant affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a writ petition in the case of a doctor who contested the introduction of arrest records relating to his conviction for possession of cocaine in professional misconduct proceedings and the tension between the Penal Code section stating that successful completion of a diversion program should not be used in a way that could result in the loss of a license and the Business and Professions Code section stating that the successful completion of diversion does not prohibit the agency from taking disciplinary action, holding that the latter statute was controlling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment that although Apple and a group of major publishers committed an unlawful antitrust conspiracy there was no antitrust injury that resulted.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that magazine publishers did not violate antitrust laws by trying to drive a wholesaler out of business. The wholesaler delivered magazines to retail stores and it alleged that when it tried to impose a surcharge on the publishers in 2009, they conspired to boycott and drive the wholesaler out of business. On appeal, the Second Circuit found that the wholesaler had presented insufficient evidence of a boycott scheme to survive summary judgment. The panel also affirmed summary judgment against the publishers' counterclaims.

(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) - Held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded a claim that a cable television operator refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Also, the section 1981 claim was not barred by the First Amendment. On interlocutory appeal, affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that an African American-owned operator of television networks sufficiently pleaded that a cable television operator unlawfully refused to enter into a carriage contract based on racial bias, in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1981. Affirmed denial of a motion to dismiss, on interlocutory appeal.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted to block a libel suit. The plaintiffs failed to make a prima-facie showing that statements regarding them in a series of articles about campaign contributions were false. Reversed in relevant part.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a corporate governance action, arising from plaintiff corporation's suit over the exercise of its right to repurchase shares of its stock, given to defendant under a stock incentive plan for outside directors on its board, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is: 1) reversed because plaintiff's conversion claim could be based on either ownership or the right to possession at the time of conversion; and 2) affirmed because plaintiff's fraud claims were not timely under either the discovery rule or relation back doctrine, and thus barred by the statute of limitations.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent infringement suit involving three competitor companies that create argon gas-enhanced electrosurgical products for electrosurgery, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) because the district court's construction of "low flow rate" is correct, and because there is no evidence that the accused probes infringe the asserted claims in the '745 patent, the district court's judgment of non-infringement is affirmed; 2) district court correctly granted summary judgment against plaintiff as to its trademark and trade dress claims based on the court's determination that the color blue is functional and has not acquired the requisite secondary meaning; 3) the district court properly granted summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims in favor of the plaintiffs as the "Sham litigation" exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine is not warranted in this case because the record demonstrates that plaintiff had probable cause to bring this patent enforcement litigation, and defendant failed to meet its burden of seeking discovery on its antitrust claims and failed to establish some genuine issue of material fact as to the other predatory acts is argues the district court ignored

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming a district court order denying a motion for attorney fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit with prejudice because attorney fees are only available in exceptional circumstances and the court decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming in part and vacating in part the US Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeals Board inter partes review determination that a medical device company had not proven that the challenged patent claims were unpatentable in a suit relating to thoracic pedicle screws for scoliosis surgery.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, brought by plaintiff insurance companies seeking declaratory relief, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed where Insurance Law section 5102 does not require no-fault insurance carriers to pay a facility fee to reimburse New York State-accredited office-based surgery centers for the use of their facilities and related support services.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained during a high school football game, alleging ambulance crew was grossly negligent in not properly assessing plaintiff's condition and immediately transporting him to the hospital in the standby ambulance, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to ambulance service provider defendant is affirmed where the court did not err in finding that there was no triable issue of material fact regarding causation.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an brought by former student-athlete plaintiffs, alleging that defendant exploited their likenesses commercially by selling non-exclusive licenses permitting consumers to download photographs from the National Collegiate Athletic Association's Photo Library for non-commercial use, the district court's order granting defendant's special motion to strike and dismissing plaintiffs' claims without leave to amend is affirmed where: 1) the federal Copyright Act preempts the plaintiffs' publicity-right claims and the derivative UCL claim; and 2) in light of that holding, plaintiffs' cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability of prevailing on their challenged claims.

(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 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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Struck down a portion of a city ordinance authorizing development impact fees for parks and recreation. Affirmed the lower court in relevant part, in this case involving California's Mitigation Fee Act.

The 419 scammers are afraid that they are going to pay your fake fund into the wrong bank account, so they want to make sure if they have the correct banking details... how considerate of them.

The Canadian Pharmacy Spammers are at it again, or should we say still at it again.

(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.

(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 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 First Circuit) - Sentence for conviction of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances within 1,000 feet of a protected location, 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1), 846 and 860, is affirmed over defendant's claims that the sentence is both procedurally flawed and substantively unreasonable where, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, such as the applicability of a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, the starting point for a court's sentencing determination is the guideline range, not the parties' recommendations.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case involving a dispute over an unwritten and allegedly exclusive distributorship agreement between plaintiff and Hormel Foods Corp. under Puerto Rico's Dealer's Contracts Act (Law 75), P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 10 sections 278-278e, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part where plaintiff's exclusivity claim as presented is time-barred; and 2) reversed in part where the statute of limitations bar to recovery extends to plaintiff's Costco-related claim as well.

(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.

The 'Rise Above - ON TOUR' Marketing Program Is An Innovative, Unique And Low Cost Opportunity To Place Your Local Performance In Front Of Committed Music Fans And Store Staff Across All Your Markets

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff brought a petition for writ of mandate claiming the fee charged by Defendant, County of Alameda, for copies of official records violated Government Code section 27366. Trial court granted petition and issued a preliminary injunction against Defendant and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiff. Appeals court found that the County did not abuse its discretion in determining the fee it charged or that section 27366 was violated.

The Music Artist Known As Asmo Has Released His Latest EP Album, “Consumed.”

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the district court's finding of noninfringement and remanding to determine whether the on-sale bar applies in a case relating to an anti-coagulant drug because a different production method was distinguished from the patented method and a patent is invalid if the product was offered for sale and ready for patenting prior to the filing of the application.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a conviction for the sale of marijuana in a case where the defendant operated a business selling medical marijuana products in Livermore, which has a municipal ordinance prohibiting marijuana dispensaries. The defendant contended that the trial court erred by denying him the ability to assert a medical-marijuana defense. The appeals court agreed and overturned his conviction, holding that the trial judge's ruling that barred him from raising a medical-marijuana defense violated his constitutional right to present a defense.

Ben je ook zo benieuwd waarom het ene socialmedia-account moeizaam enkele likes bij elkaar schraapt? En het andere een levendige community is met veel bereik? Verschillende elementen dragen bij aan meer activiteit op je socialmedia-kanaal. Ik ontdekte: actief zijn in de avond kan een groot verschil maken. Dit is eigenlijk heel logisch. Juist ‘s avonds […]

Benjamin Crump, a civil rights attorney representing the father of Ahmaud Arbery, called for police to arrest the Georgia man who filmed Arbery being shot and killed, USA Today reported Thursday.