(United States First Circuit) - In dispute arising from a district court order preliminarily enjoining defendants from misappropriating plaintiff's trade secrets by selling computer mouse products similar to or derived from those made by plaintiff, order is affirmed where court properly upheld the validity of a non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit involving claims of indirect patent infringement and misappropriation of a trade secret: 1) the district court's denial of the defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity and noninfringement is reversed, where the jury lacked substantial evidence to find that another patent did not anticipate the claim; and 2) the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to the defendant on the plaintiff's trade secret claim is affirmed, where another patent publicly disclosed the alleged secret before the plaintiff communicated it to the defendant, and thus the jury's verdict of trade secret misappropriation was not supported by substantial evidence.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, involving certain ergonomic computer mouse products, district court's judgment is: 1) reversed where the it erred in extending the injunction to defendant's ErgoRoller product because the record does not support the finding that defendant breached the NDA in producing this product; 2) affirmed where it did not err in the duration of the injunction as applied to the other enjoined products; and 3) affirmed where it did not err in jury instructions on lost profits, as but for the breach, plaintiff could have recovered the lost profits by employing another company to manufacture the products and selling them.

(United States Second Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its former employee for unauthorized access and misuse of a computer system and misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of Connecticut laws, district court's dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed and remanded where the foreign defendant's use of a computer in Connecticut satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of both the Connecticut long-arm statute and due process.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In copyright infringement action brought by plaintiff, maker of Barbie dolls, against defendant, maker of Bratz dolls, judgment for defendant on counterclaim for trade secret misappropriation and awarding attorney fees for prevailing on copyright claim is: 1) reversed and remanded on defendant's counterclaim for trade secret misappropriation which did not rest on the same "aggregate core of facts" as plaintiff's claim, was thus, not compulsory; but 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding defendant fees and costs under the Copyright Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on patent infringement claims involving a wire tier device that is used to bale recyclables or solid waste is: 1) reversed in part and remanded with respect to claims 1-4 of the ’877 patent, where the district court erred in it construction of the terms "each" and "a respective one"; but 2) affirmed on claim 5 of the ’877 patent and all of the asserted claims of the ’992 patent; and 3) affirmed on the denial of plaintiff's motion for additional discovery pursuant to and the dismissal of plaintiff's Missouri Uniform Trade Secrets Act cause of action.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - The district court did not abuse its discretion in staying plaintiffs' action seeking declaratory relief that it was not committing violations asserted by defendants in an earlier filed state law action, pending the resolution of the earlier parallel state lawsuit filed by defendants, where plaintiffs had every opportunity to procure a federal forum by removing defendants' first filed state suit rather than by bringing a separate federal action in an entirely separate federal district.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an action alleging that the government misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets, the Fifth Circuit's decision vacating the district court’s judgment for plaintiff and remanding the case for transfer of the case to the Claims Court under 28 U.S.C. section 1631, is affirmed, where: 1) the Fifth Circuit ruling that the case must be transferred to the Claims Court is law of the case; and 2) the Claims Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's suit because although plaintiff brought the action under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which now must give way, plaintiff is within the class of those authorized to recover upon proof of breach of contract, injury, and amount of damages, as well as a Fifth Amendment taking.

(United States First Circuit) - The district court's preliminary injunction that restrained defendant, a former employee of plaintiff, from doing business with certain customers to whom he had sold products and services while in plaintiff's employ, is affirmed, where: 1) the identity of the party making initial contact is just one factor among many that the trial court should consider in drawing the line between solicitation and acceptance; 2) the evidence of record is adequate to underpin the lower court's determinations that defendant violated the non-solicitation covenant and that plaintiff is therefore likely to succeed on the merits; and 3) the district court narrowly tailored the preliminary injunction with respect to non-disclosure, enjoining only the use of information contained in defendant's notes.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rule 8.278 of the California Rules of Court precludes defendant from recovering the interest paid on the borrowed funds that are deposited with the court in lieu of an appeal bond, and a recent amendment of rule 8.278, which expressly allows recovery of interest in this situation, and which became effective during the pendency of this appeal, should not be given retroactive application.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's decision finding defendant in contempt of its 2001 order adopting the parties' Settlement Agreement that plaintiff would be the sole owner of three U.S. patents and one pending U.S. patent application, is reversed and the injunction is vacated, where none of challenged conduct in developing and selling the pressure exchanger violates any provision of the 2001 Order.

(United States Federal Circuit) - The district court's orders purporting to clarify a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendants from using various materials and processes first developed by plaintiff, are vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked jurisdiction over this case when plaintiff initiated this lawsuit because plaintiff's complaint does not allege a sufficient controversy concerning inventorship, but instead concerns only ownership of the disputed patent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Judgment for plaintiff finding that defendant had misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets regarding its digital stamping technology (DST), which was disclosed to defendant during negotiations pursuant to Non-Disclosure Agreement, is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff did not fail to adequately identify its trade secrets; 2) the trial court did not err in its identification of the misappropriated trade secrets; 3) ideas are protectable as trade secrets; 4) design concepts underlying plaintiff's DST constitute protectable "information"; 5) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that plaintiff's DST design concepts had independent economic value and the finding that defendant misappropriated plaintiff's trade secrets; 6) the trial court properly based its damages award on the reasonable royalty measure of damages, and did not err in awarding prejudgment interest; and 7) defendant has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in basing its fee award on local hourly rates or shown the hourly rates employed by the trial court were unreasonable.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In this case, plaintiffs allege that defendants violated state-law torts of misappropriation of trade secrets and engaged in conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted is reversed and remanded for further proceedings, where: 1) the district court relied on judgments about the merits that go beyond what is authorized at the complaint stage; and 2) plaintiffs' specific factual allegations of protective measures taken against trade secret misappropriation are enough to survive a motion to dismiss.

(California Court of Appeal) - Award of attorney fees to defendant in an underlying action for misappropriation of trade secret by seeking to hire away plaintiff's employees, is affirmed where: 1) the trial court's findings are free of procedural error; 2) the finding of plaintiff's bad faith is amply supported by evidence that defendants did no more than attempting to recruit the employees of a competitor, which they are entitled to do under California state law; and 3) defendant prevailed when plaintiff dismissed the suit to avoid an adverse determination on the merits.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that Google, which had initiated arbitration proceedings against two of its former employees, was entitled to obtain discovery from nonparty Uber. Google sought documents relating to Uber's purchase from the two former employees of a self-driving vehicle company called Ottomotto, which Google claimed the two employees created in breach of their contracts and fiduciary duties. Reversing the trial court, the California First Appellate District held that Uber could not withhold the requested documents on grounds of attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute involving two competing healthcare companies, held that nurse recruiters who left one company to join the other did not breach clauses in their contracts that prohibited them from soliciting other employees to leave, because those clauses were unenforceable here. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(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 Fifth Circuit) - Reverse and remand. Defendant advanced the theory that its insurance policy did not cover injuries caused by drunk driving collisions, because they are not “accidents”. The trial court granted summary judgment to Defendant, insurance company, stating that the intentional decision to drive while intoxicated meant the collision was not an accident. The appeals court held that there was nothing in Texas law that would construe the term “accident” in the manner put forth by the Defendant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiffs brought a wrongful death action on behalf of their 13-year-old son who was struck and killed by a school bus. The jury found that Plaintiff’s son was 80 percent responsible for the accident and awarded $250,000 in damages. The trial court denied a motion for a new trial. The appeals court held that Plaintiffs had not made a cognizable argument as to why the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion and found no merit in Plaintiff’s claims. Affirmed judgment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - 9th Circuit panel certified two questions to the California Supreme Court: 1) Does Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code apply to covenants not to compete not involving employer and employee? and 2) Does a claim for intentional interference with contractual relations require the plaintiff to plead and prove an intentionally wrongful act in cases not involving at-will employment contracts?

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued for negligence and premises liability for an assault that injured him in the Defendant's parking lot. The trial court found that Plaintiff had not met his burden of showing foreseeability of violent criminal assaults. Therefore, Defendant did not have a legal duty to implement additional security measures to prevent possible third-party conduct.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment in favor of the Defendant. Plaintiff brought suit against Defendant under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, who is deaf, requested an American Sign Language interpreter at Defendants' continuing educations courses. Held that while a public accommodation must furnish appropriate assistance to individuals with disabilities, specific aid is not required, but there was an issue of material fact as to whether effective communication was offered to Plaintiff even if different than that requested.

(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) - Held that an antitrust lawsuit was barred by the act-of-state doctrine. The plaintiff corporations alleged that a Mexican-government-owned salt production company engaged in an antitrust conspiracy with a Japanese company. Affirming dismissal of the complaint, the Ninth Circuit held that the lawsuit was fundamentally a challenge to Mexico's determination about the exploitation of its own natural resources and thus was barred by the act-of-state doctrine, which precludes adjudication of the sovereign acts of other nations in U.S. courts.

(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 Second Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the defendants knowingly aided or abetted November, 2005 attacks in Jordan.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff-former minority shareholder's securities fraud claims alleging that defendant-insiders purchased stock by making a tender offer through a shell corporation without disclosing any information about defendant-company's financial state, is: 1) vacated as to the dismissal of plaintiff's insider trading claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, and of her pendent non-federal claims for breach of fiduciary duty, where the duty of corporate insiders to either disclose material non-public information or abstain from trading is defined by federal common law and applies to unregistered securities, and therefore, the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's insider trading claims; but 2) affirmed as to the dismissal of her market manipulation claims, and of her insider trading claims under section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act.

(United States First Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in a class action brought by plaintiff-stockholders challenging the fairness of a corporate merger is vacated and remanded, where: 1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment in light of plaintiffs' Affidavit outlining the discovery they needed to respond to the dispositive motion; and 2) plaintiffs should have been afforded the opportunity to conduct additional discovery.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a suit brought by a shareholder of retailer-defendant, seeking to include its proposal in defendant's proxy materials for shareholder consideration, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff ordering the inclusion of the proposal into the proxy materials is reversed where the proposal, which goes to the heart of defendant's business, is excludable under the "ordinary business" exclusion of SEC Rule 14a-8(i)(7), 17 C.F.R. section 240.14a-8(i)(7).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a tort action brought by a court-appointed receiver against defendant accountants who audited the financial statements of PEMGroup, whose former directors and managers defrauded $950 million from investors, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed where the receiver failed to raise a genuine issues as to causation by failing to show that the involved companies or its investors relied on the audits at issue.

(United States First Circuit) - In an investor suit against the company and four corporate officers, following a drop in the share price of the company, alleging securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as well as the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. section 240.10b-5, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed as to the dismissal of the securities fraud counts, except with respect to one particular alleged misstatement for which we find the allegations set forth in the complaint sufficient to state a claim; and 2) affirmed as to the disposition of the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 11 and 15, albeit on different grounds than those articulated by the district court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's summary judgment as to nine outside directors of McAfee in a class action corporate malfeasance case relating to the company's merger with Intel in which former public shareholders alleged an unfair process contaminated by conflicts that resulted in an undervalued price at sale, but reversing the judgment as to the former CEO and the corporate defendants

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's order reinstating the Gurneys, the producers of Duck Dynasty, to positions managing the day-to-day operations of the plaintiff company that they once owned and are the minority owners of, who had been fired from their roles as CEOs and removed from management, because the very operating agreement the Gurneys said gave them authority to manage actually gave the company, through its board, the ultimate authority and allowed them to remove the Gurneys from management, but affirming the preliminary injunction allowing them to continue as board members and barring the company from infringing their rights in that position.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's dismissal of a shareholder derivative action for failure to show demand futility in a suit where shareholders of a company who brought suit for breach of fiduciary duties for failing to disclose manufacturing and design defects in the company's solar panels without making a demand to the board.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that former board members of a corporation lacked corporate authority when they filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The board members argued that they had the proper authority to file the bankruptcy petition even though a receiver appointed by a state court already had removed them from the board of directors. Rejecting their argument, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the bankruptcy petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a proposed shareholder class action could not proceed in a California court. The proper jurisdiction was Delaware because the defendant corporation had adopted a bylaw designating Delaware as the exclusive litigation forum for intra-corporate disputes. The forum selection bylaw was enforceable even though it had been adopted without stockholder consent.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a board member of a nonprofit corporation was not entitled to a preliminary injunction barring her from being removed from the board. Reversed a preliminary injunction, in this case involving a nonprofit that operates public radio stations.

(NY Supreme Court) - 2018–11536 (Index No. 51923/17)

(NY Supreme Court) - 527667

(PA Supreme Court) - No. 22 WAP 2018 No. 23 WAP 2018

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment in favor of a medical supplier in its lawsuit against a health insurance company that refused to pay for covered services. The supplier, which provides equipment and staffing to doctors who perform surgery in their own offices, prevailed in a jury trial.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration of an insurance dispute. A company that sued its workers' compensation insurer over premium hikes contended that the case did not have to be arbitrated because the California Insurance Code invalidated the parties' arbitration agreement.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company could not bring a subrogation claim against its insured's tenant (a furniture manufacturing business) for amounts paid out under a fire insurance policy, even if the tenant was negligent. Affirmed a summary judgment ruling.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that an automobile insurance policyholder who was unhappy with the handling of her claim for the total loss of her vehicle did not have to submit the dispute to a panel of appraisers, as set forth in the policy. Affirmed the denial of the insurer's motion to compel appraisal in this proposed class action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not abuse its discretion in denying disability benefits to an attorney who stopped working due to intractable migraines. Affirmed the judgment below in this ERISA case.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an insurance dispute following an explosion and fire on an oil rig in Ohio, addressed arbitrability and personal jurisdiction issues. Affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision below.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an insurance company owed a duty to defend a general contractor who was being sued by homeowners over alleged roofing defects. The case involved a commercial general liability insurance policy issued to a roofing subcontractor. Reversed the decision below.