If the authorities can’t satisfy the public’s desire to know more, others will fill the void with misinformation. Carl Bergstrom, professor of biology at the UW, is mentioned.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the trial court's ruling for plaintiff which had sued the US for additional grant money for alternative energy projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The US appealed arguing that it had overpaid plaintiff. In vacating, the appellate court found that the trial court erred in finding for the plaintiff and it remanded to re-examine the government’s calculation method.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that vaccinations given to an infant did not cause him to develop a seizure condition. The parents of an infant who developed an illness called Dravet syndrome after being vaccinated sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Agreeing with the findings of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the Federal Circuit held in a 2-1 decision that the parents failed to show that the infant's injuries were caused by his vaccinations.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a whistleblower claim brought under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed where, in using the term 'whistleblower,' Congress did not intend to limit protections to those who disclose information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rather, the anti-retaliation provision also protects those who were fired after making internal disclosures of alleged unlawful activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other laws, rules, and regulations.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed order denying petition to compel arbitration. Plaintiffs attempted to enforce arbitration in an action for elder abuse and wrongful death at a skilled nursing facility. The trial court determined that the successor in interest was bound by the agreement to arbitrate, but the children of the decedent were not so bound. The trial court denied the petition to arbitrate to prevent inconsistent findings if both arbitration and litigation proceeded concurrently. The appeals court agreed.

(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 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 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.

(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.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was a passenger in an automobile that was involved in an accident. He was not a party to the insurance policy that covered the car, but was an unnamed additional insured. Plaintiff attempted to contact Defendant, the insurer of the car, but was unsuccessful. Plaintiff then reached his own settlement with at-fault driver of the other car. Defendant refused to agree to the settlement and denied coverage to Plaintiff stating that under the terms of the policy, Plaintiff had to have approval from them before settling. The trial court found that Plaintiff was not a party to the insurance contract, did not know the terms of the policy and could not be held to those terms.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a diversity insurance coverage action, District Court erred in not applying the specialized meaning of terms in an insurance contract, as required by the California Civil Code (here “war” and “warlike action”). Summary judgment in favor of insurer overturned.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer was not liable for contractual and statutory violations arising from the denial of a commercial property insurance claim. The suit was untimely because re-investigation by the insurer did not toll the accrual of the cause of action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition denied. A company's petition for review of an administrative law judge's finding of violations and imposition of a monetary penalty against a poultry processing plant following a worker injury was upheld.

(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.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld the validity of a Treasury Department regulation. The provision's focus is that related business entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements. Reversed the judgment of the U.S. Tax Court.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Upheld an Internal Revenue Service regulation addressing the tax treatment of employee stock options. In a ruling that has tax implications for multinational companies especially, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Tax Court erred in striking down a regulation, 26 C.F.R. section 1.482-7A(d)(2), which says that related entities must share the cost of employee stock compensation in order for their cost-sharing arrangements to be classified as qualified cost-sharing arrangements and thus avoid an IRS adjustment. The panel held that the regulation was entitled to Chevron deference.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an antitrust lawsuit alleging a power district had attempted to entrench its monopoly by setting prices that disfavored solar-power providers, defendant's appeal of the district court order denying its motion to dismiss the suit based on the state-action immunity doctrine, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where the collateral order doctrine does not allow an immediate appeal of an order denying a dismissal motion based on state-action immunity.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim relating to the alleged conflict of interest in the acquisition of property by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District's acquisition of property where one of the District's directors had partial ownership of the agency facilitating the sale of the property and whose wife was its listing agent because the former owner had standing under the Government Code to bring the action and that the action was not subject to validation statutes because it was a conflict of interest rather than a contracts claim.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

(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.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a personal injury action, arising after plaintiff, a minor child, was exposed to lead at her grandmother's apartment where she was cared for during the day, the Supreme Court's dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where plaintiff child' did not 'reside' at her grandmother's apartment for the purposes of section 27-2013[h][1] of the Administrative Code of the City of NY, which requires landlords to remove lead-based paint in any dwelling in which a child six year of age and under resides.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

(United States Supreme Court) - In an insurance class action arising in the context of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) authorization of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with private carriers for federal employees' health insurance, 5 U.S.C. section 8902(a) and (d), the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, preventing federal employee insurance carries from seeking subrogation and reimbursement if there is a conflicting state law, is reversed where, because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions plainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' section 8902(m)(1), they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In this insurance law claim a health insurer contends that the US failed to satisfy its payment obligation under a federal health insurance pool program. The Court of Federal Claims entered judgement for the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment stating that Congress suspended the governments obligation and that subsequent regulation did not create a contract promising full payment.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a general building contractor did not file a timely court challenge to a citation issued by government inspectors who found a safety violation at a job site. Affirmed dismissal of the contractor's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a subcontractor could not proceed with its lawsuit against a general contractor seeking payment for work on a project to build public schools. The subcontractor did not properly comply with the notice requirements of the Louisiana Public Works Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a university-affiliated medical practice must return $8 million to the federal agency that administers Medicare. The medical practice's test of a new care management model (a Medicare demonstration project) did not achieve the expected cost savings. Upheld an administrative order.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services neglected its statutory notice-and-comment obligations when it revealed a new policy that dramatically -- and retroactively -- reduced Medicare payments to hospitals serving low-income patients. Concluded that the new policy must be vacated. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the 7-1 Court (Justice Kavanaugh did not participate).

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued medical providers for birth injuries that were paid for through Medi-Cal. The Department of Health Care Services put a lien on the monies recovered from the medical providers. Plaintiff sought to remove lien. Court held that Medi-Cal was entitled to repayment and upheld the lien.

(MD Court of Appeals) - No. 19, Sept. Term, 2019

(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) - 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.

(United States First Circuit) - In an action stemming from the plaintiffs' purchase of a piece of land and the opposition the defendants mounted to the plaintiffs' plan to develop that property, alleging defendants' conduct violated various constitutional and state law provisos, including 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA), Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 12, section 11, the District Court's grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs did not give sufficient facts to state plausible-on-their-face claims, ones that gave rise to more than a mere possibility of liability.

(United States Second Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Plaintiff, who is profoundly deaf, appeals from dismissal on summary judgment her claim that a hospital violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide an ASL interpreter. The panel concluded that material issues of fact preclude summary judgment.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action against Missouri Department of Natural Resources officials claiming denial of equal protection, tortious interference with contract, and First Amendment retaliation, partial summary judgment for defendant on the First Amendment claim and judgment pursuant to jury verdict for plaintiff on the tortious-interference claim are affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had no standing to assert the First Amendment claim; 2) defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law could not be the basis of an appeal; 3) the district court properly refused defendant's "official duties" and "official immunity" instructions; and 4) the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the tortious-interference claim.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a suit arising out of alleged fraud by officers of a corporation acquired by defendant, a preliminary injunction preventing defendant from proceeding with an arbitration hearing on the fraud claims is affirmed where the merger agreement between the two companies did not mandate arbitration of the types of claims defendant asserted against plaintiffs.

(United States Second Circuit) - In antitrust dispute arising from a action by plaintiff seeking to prevent defendant-healthcare providers from merging, summary judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where the district court's conclusion, that the market definition the plaintiff alleged as the basis of its claims is legally deficient, is a discretionary prerogative devoid of abuse.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff appealed from order of the probate court denying their request that special needs trust be distributed to them rather than Department of Health Care Services. Appeals court found Department was entitled to reimbursement for Medi-Cal expenses.