(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.

NICK Bertus and Will ­Affleck fell just three runs short of a century-old record to lead Parramatta to a two-day win over Western Suburbs.

(United States First Circuit) - Convictions of several police officers on charges of conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights and for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, are affirmed, as the facts in this case amply support the determination that a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants, acting under color of state law, conspired to violate various residents' rights and the evidence supporting the convictions for conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute is substantially the same and is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the facts in the case.

(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.

(United States Second Circuit) - In this civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant volunteer ambulance corps and several of its directors violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by levying disciplinary charges against her without a hearing, summary judgment in favor of defendants and dismissal of plaintiff's federal constitutional claims is affirmed, where: 1) emergency medical care and general ambulance services are not "traditionally exclusive public functions"; 2) extensive State regulation and oversight does not therefore entwine defendant with the State; and 3) defendant's conduct does not amount to state action.

(California Court of Appeal) - In plaintiff's suit against E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for award of reasonable royalties is reversed and remanded where: 1) given the jury's finding that E*Trade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not "provable" within the meaning of section 3426.3; 2) since E*Trade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff's actual losses are not provable, E*Trade is estopped from arguing otherwise now; and 3) because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit involving claims of patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, arising from an award of a military contract to its competitor to provide infrared cameras, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is reversed, as it was for the jury and not for the district court to determine when plaintiff should have first discovered the facts supporting its cause of action. Here, the district court erred by resolving genuine factual disputes in favor of the defendant, the moving party, in concluding that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff's claim.

(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) - Ruling of the International Trade Commission that respondent-intervenor uPI violated the Consent Order as to the imports known as "formerly accused products" is affirmed, the modified penalty is affirmed, and the ruling of no violation as to the post-Consent Order products is reversed, where: 1) substantial evidence does not support the Commission's conclusion that uPI's post-Consent Order products were independently developed; and 2) the United States sale or importation of downstream products, which incorporate uPI's formerly accused upstream products and infringe the '190 patent, constitutes a violation of the Consent Order's knowingly aiding or abetting provision.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a trademark secrets and employment case arising out of the formation of defendant uPI Semiconductors by employees of plaintiff Richtek, the sustaining of defendants' demurrer is reversed where the trial court improperly took judicial notice of the substantive allegations contained in two 2007 court complaints filed in Taiwan to resolve factual disputes in the case.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of no liability in a trade secret misappropriation case where a jury found that a competitor did not steal Raytheon's trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. Raytheon appealed but the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the company's JMOL and new-trial motions, and also affirmed denial of the competitor's motion for attorney fees.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a company did not violate a nondisclosure agreement by including particular information in a patent application for a 3D printing process. Affirmed summary judgment against a breach-of-contract claim brought by the other party to the nondisclosure agreement, a distributor of specialty polymers.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the competitor on the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and common law conversion claim, in relevant part.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment against the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and civilian law conversion claim, in relevant part.

(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.

(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 DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's dismissal of a tort claim as time barred was in error because at the motion to dismiss stage dismissal for statute of limitations is only possible if the plaintiff's claims are conclusively time barred on the face of the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of a shareholder class action against Toshiba Corp. filed by investors who alleged securities fraud. The district court dismissed their claims on jurisdictional grounds and, on appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the district court misapplied principles regarding extraterritorial applicability of U.S. securities laws set forth in Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010). The Ninth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs and reversed and remanded with instructions to allow the plaintiffs to amend their shareholder complaint against the Japanese firm to overcome the jurisdictional hurdle.

(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 Supreme Court) - Held that an international organization did not have as much immunity from lawsuits as it contended it did. The U.S.-headquartered organization was being sued in connection with its financing of a development project in India that allegedly created damaging pollution. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the organization's immunity was the same as foreign governments enjoy today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, in a 7-1 decision interpreting the International Organizations Immunities Act. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court's opinion. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the decision.

(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) - Judgment for plaintiff in an action alleging intentional interference with a License Agreement, interference with plaintiff's prospective economic advantage, breach of a confidentiality agreement, and breach of confidence, arising out of defendant Actelion's notice to plaintiff that following its acquisition of defendant CoTherix, defendant Co-Therix's would discontinue development of plaintiff's drug for "business and commercial reasons," is affirmed, where: 1) defendant Actelion, by virtue of its ownership interest, is not automatically immune from tortious interference with the License Agreement; 2) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of wrongful interference with contract and properly charged with considering whether defendants "used unlawful means to interfere with the License Agreement;" and 3) the manager's privilege does not exempt a manager from liability when he or she tortiously interferes with a contract or relationship between third parties.

(California Court of Appeal) - Dismissal of an action brought by plaintiff-minority shareholders for "rescissionary damages" based on breach of fiduciary duty by defendants with respect to a proposed buyout of defendant-company, is: 1) affirmed in part, where under Corporations Code section 1312(b), in common control situations, dissenting minority shareholders have the remedy of appraisal unless they elect the remedy of stopping or rescinding the reorganization but they do not have any right to sue for damages for breach of fiduciary duty; but 2) reversed in part and remanded, where plaintiffs have never withdrawn their alternative request to set aside the merger.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action concerning a property lease and a purported joint venture agreement entered into between a son and his father, the now-deceased former president and majority shareholder of a real estate development corporation, seeking damages for the son's use and occupancy of the property and a judgment declaring that the lease and joint venture agreement were void, the District Court's rulings denying the son's discovery requests and granting summary judgment to corporate-plaintiff are affirmed where: 1) the lease was void as a gift or act of corporate waste; and 2) the parol evidence rule applies in this case and the integration clause in the lease retains its preclusive effect, thus the purported joint venture agreement is unenforceable.

(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) - 2019-06933 (Index No. 508155/15)

(NY Supreme Court) - 2019–04234 Index No. 523834/18

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company did not have to indemnify an insured for the cost of cleaning up groundwater contamination at its industrial sites. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of the insurer, in this case involving the policy's pollution exclusion clause.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court's entry of summary judgment for a company on a claim of breach of contract against an insurer was overturned because of the court's interpretation of the clause "as reported" to mean a report had been made, rather than referencing events that had already occurred at the time of the drafting.

(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The district court had jurisdiction over a Labor Management Relations Act Claim relating to a maritime labor union because the act provides federal jurisdiction over suits for violation of contracts between employers and labor organizations.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the U.S. Tax Court's ruling that an energy company was liable for a deficiency of more than $400 million for certain previous tax years, and also for $87 million in accuracy-related penalties.

(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 Second Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal for failure to state a claim allegations of First Amendment violations by the City of New York, but reversing as to Manhattan Community Access Corporation and its employees because public access TV channels are a public forum and the corporation and its employees were state actors when they fired workers who produced segments critical of the corporation.

(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 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.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a private entity operating public access cable TV channels was not subject to First Amendment constraints on its editorial discretion. The producers of a controversial documentary film contended that the nonprofit corporation running the public access channels was a state actor because it was exercising a function traditionally exclusively reserved to the State, and therefore was subject to suit for violating their free speech rights. However, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the 5-4 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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of Federal Claims dismissal of a company's action seeking refunds for losses and deductions its predecessor company allegedly should have received for certain intangible assets acquired from the federal government in the 1980s because the court's findings that the company failed to establish with a reasonable degree of certainty the cost basis in each of the assets at issue was not clearly erroneous.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of the International Trade court's decision sustaining the determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce on remand to apply adverse facts available (AFA) after defendant did not report input purchases for two of its steel mills, the Trade Court decision is affirmed where Commerce's application of AFA to defendant is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with law.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's decision denying a duty drawback adjustment for exports of oil country tubular goods where the Turkish company claiming the drawback adjustment claimed that Commerce only increases price to account for rebated rather than unpaid import duties, a position the court declined to adopt.

(United States Third Circuit) - Concluding that a transfer by a non-debtor cannot be a 'fraudulent transfer' under the Delaware Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a complicated case involving Venezuela's nationalization of a gold mine owned by a Canadian company, the debt judgment subsequently issued by the World Bank, and the ensuing financial shuffle among companies related to the original transaction.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Partially affirming, partially reversing, partially vacating, and remanding a case in which the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee appealed a decision of the US Court of International Trade affirming the scope of the US Department of Commerce ruling holding that Whirlpoo's kitchen appliance door handles with end caps don't fall within the scope of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on aluminum extrusions from the People's Republic of China.

(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) - On rehearing of a dispute between two creditors, held that Louisiana's non-resident attachment statute allows for attachment in aid of arbitration. Further held that subject matter jurisdiction existed here under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Vacated and remanded.