(United States Seventh Circuit) - In a trademark dispute concerning a computer table, defendant did not engage in "reverse passing off" when it incorporated some of plaintiff's hardware into a sample table that it presented to potential purchasers.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.

(United States Tenth Circuit) - In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In litigation over competing lines of high-end cookware in which the appellees claimed trade dress infringement and unfair and deceptive trade practices, the district court's judgment in favor of the appellees is affirmed, where: 1) the appellant's failure to move pursuant to Rule 50(b) forfeited its challenge on appeal to the sufficiency of the evidence; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in qualifying an expert or in admitting his testimony and survey; 3) the appellant engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices as a matter of law; 4) the infringement was not innocent or unintentional, and the unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes covered it; and 5) the trial judge properly treated the award of profits as damages subject to trebling under state statute.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Summary judgment in favor of defendant in an action for trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under sections 32(1)(a) and 43(a) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act) and Virginia common law, is vacated and remanded, where: 1) plaintiff alleges that defendant used a similar dot pattern on its GoodNites bed mats as plaintiff used on plaintiff's absorbent products; 2) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine factual question as to whether their selection of a pixel pattern was a purely aesthetic choice among many alternatives; and thus, 3) plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the functionality of its pixel pattern.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a complaint alleging design-patent infringement under federal law as well as trade-dress infringement and unfair competition under federal and state law, the district court's denial of defendant's motion to stay the action pending arbitration based on the parties' agreement's arbitration provision, is affirmed where defendant's assertion that the arbitration provision covers the claims stated in the complaint is 'wholly groundless,' a standard that defendant accepts as applicable in this case.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed that insurance companies had a duty to provide a defense to a footwear wholesaler that was being sued in an intellectual property case for offering for sale certain infringing slippers. The insurance policy covered advertising injuries, and advertising included offering for sale.

(United States Supreme Court) - Reversed and remanded. WesternGeco owns a patent for a system to survey the ocean floor and they believed that a competing system owned by ION infringed on their patent. WesternGeco sued. The jury found ION liable and awarded WesternGeco damages including lost profit damages. ION argued that the lost profit damages was not allowed and the appellate court agreed with them. The US Supreme Court disagreed and reversed and remanded the decision stating that lost profits for a domestic patent was permissible under the Patent Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action. A jury found that the defendant infringed on both asserted claims and that neither claim was invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of plaintiff’s infringement claims, but stated that plaintiff’s theory of infringement of other claims was inadequate to support the judgment of infringement and therefore reversed on that claim.

(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 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) - The Fifth Circuit transferred a case back to the Federal Circuit, from which it had been transferred. The two circuits disagreed about which one was the proper forum for this appeal, which involved a company's claim that a competitor violated antitrust law by obtaining a patent through fraud.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a commercial dispute for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant companies, which lacked sufficient contacts with Illinois. The case involved an alleged failure to pay royalties to the owners of certain patent rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granted writ of mandate and directed trial court to vacate order granting summary adjudication motion. The appeals court held that the trial court’s per se application of Business and Professions Code section 16600 to the contract in question was incorrect.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an environmental action, challenging a Town Board's positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and requiring a draft environmental impact statement, the trial court's dismissal of the petition is affirmed where the positive declaration is not justiciable and the case not ripe for judicial review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated a consumer's proposed class action lawsuit against a manufacturer of nutritional supplements. Held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act did not preempt the consumer's California law claims that the company made false or misleading statements about the source of the protein in one of its muscle-building products. Reversed dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's appeal of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sections 2412(a) and (d)(1)(A) (2012), the Claims Court's conclusion that comments made by the Court during a hearing and prior to the Government taking corrective action materially altered the relationship between the parties such that plaintiff qualified as a 'prevailing party' under the EAJA, the award is reversed where a strong comment by a trial court is not tantamount to a ruling on the merits or a court order.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an arbitrator's decision in favor of a builder in a dispute with a community association over alleged defects in construction. The association, consisting of residential condominium units, argued that its arbitration claim should not have been dismissed on summary judgment even though the association had filed the claim without first receiving the consent of its members, in violation of its declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Agreeing with the builder, the California Fourth Appellate District affirmed denial of the association's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order voiding a default judgment on procedural grounds. Held that the complaint did not provide adequate notice to sustain a default because it failed to specify the amount of damages that the plaintiff was seeking, and instead merely prayed for "damages according to proof," in this lawsuit related to the construction of a hotel.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups lacked a valid basis to challenge a city council's decision to approve the construction of an eight-unit multifamily residential building. Affirmed denial of a writ petition, in a case involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a contractor breached its contract with a subcontractor. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial but remanded for recalculation of damages under the Louisiana Prompt Payment Act, in this case involving an Army Corps of Engineers' project.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a wrongful death lawsuit, revived a claim that a construction company's faulty road repairs resulted in icing that led to a fatal motor vehicle crash. Reversed a summary judgment ruling. Also, addressed a dispute regarding the existence of removal jurisdiction.

Ms Veronica Cordier, a 419 loan offer scammer that's by the book.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Revived property owners' claim that toxic dust and debris from the demolition of an abandoned factory migrated onto their properties, jeopardizing their health and the health of their tenants. Vacated a summary judgment ruling, in a lawsuit brought under federal statutes authorizing private rights of action for environmental contamination, and also under state law.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the judgment upholding the Defendant, Water Board’s, determination that Plaintiff was jointly and severally responsible for the cleanup and abatement of petroleum residue or waste. Plaintiff sought a reversal of order denying petition to overturn that determination.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A steel mill could be sued under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act but Indiana's Environmental Legal Actions Statute was precluded. The suit was timely and equitable contribution rulings were proper.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit relating to who should pay for the cleanup of a contaminated site was dismissed because the limitations period had expired by the time the plaintiff filed suit.

(United States DC Circuit) - Denied, remanded, and vacated. Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's 2015 revisions to the primary and secondary national ambient air quality standards for ozone were denied except with respect to secondary ozone, which was remanded for reconsideration and the grandfathering provision, which was vacated.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversing an order granting a motion for attorney fees under the Copyright Act in a case involving a songwriting contest Sony co-sponsored that had been dismissed with prejudice because it was subject to a mandatory arbitration agreement signed when the plaintiff entered the contest because the removal to arbitration did not quality the defendants as having been the prevailing party.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. In this copyright law case, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant. Plaintiffs, professional photographers, alleged that defendants removed copyright information metadata from their photographs in violation of 17 USC section 1202(b)(1)-(3). Section 1202 requires defendants to have known the prohibited act would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement. Plaintiffs were unable to offer evidence to satisfy this requirement.

(United States First Circuit) - Reversed the order to dismiss the plaintiff's copyright and trademark claims stemming from a songwriting contest. Plaintiff entered a songwriting competition and agreed to the terms of the contest rules including an arbitration provision. Plaintiff did not win the contest, but alleges that the song he submitted was used by defendant for a music video. The court held that defendant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and could not invoke its provisions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated claims for violation of California law copyrights possessed in certain musical performance sound recordings. The plaintiff copyright holders argued that their decision to remaster their pre-1972 analog sound recordings onto digital formats did not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law. Agreeing with the plaintiffs that their state law copyright claims were not preempted, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant radio broadcasters.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, reinstated musical recording owners' claims that radio broadcasters violated their state law copyrights in pre-1972 analog sound recordings that were later remastered onto digital formats. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the broadcasters and also reversed the striking of the plaintiffs' class certification motion.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.

(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 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 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 Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated an antitrust claim against a wholly owned natural gas subsidiary that said it had no knowledge of its parent company's alleged price-fixing scheme that had pumped up the price of gas. The subsidiary argued that it could not be held liable for violating Wisconsin antitrust law because it was not involved in anything unlawful that its parent company may have done. Unpersuaded, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary always act as a single enterprise whenever they engage in coordinated activity, and thus reversed the grant of summary judgment to the subsidiary.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that it could not be decided on summary judgment whether interests in several oil and gas drilling projects qualified as securities, as the Securities and Exchange Commission insisted they were. The SEC brought this civil enforcement action against several companies that sold the interests to investors without first registering them as securities. Reversed a summary judgment ruling and remanded.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an industry challenge to California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard. A number of industry trade groups argued that the California regulations designed to reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions violate the Commerce Clause or other parts of the federal constitution. However, the Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Plaintiff, SEC, filed suit against Defendant for failure to register interests in oil and gas drilling projects as securities. District court granted SEC motion for summary judgement. Appeals court revered and remanded because Defendant had raised several issues of material fact that the district court failed to consider.

(United States First Circuit) - In a lawsuit over the trademarking and continued sale of a chicken sandwich, alleging violations of the Lanham Act and Copyright Act, the district court's order dismissing the federal claims and declination of jurisdiction over the supplemental Puerto Rico law claims is affirmed where: 1) there was no violation of the Copyright Act because neither the name "Pechu Sandwich" nor the recipe are eligible for copyright protection; and 2) the complaint fails to sufficiently plead that defendant committed fraud in the procurement of a federal trademark for the sandwich.

(United States First Circuit) - In a case arising out of the near-collapse of the mortgage-backed securities market, alleges that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities they knew were far riskier than indicated by their pristine ratings, the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims on jurisdictional grounds is reversed where it erred in finding that it lacks statutory power to transfer this action to another federal court in which personal jurisdiction over certain defending parties may be met.