You’re in luck if you love Miss Phryne Fisher, TV’s elegant lady detective.

(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.

Rising AFL star Edyn Harapin lives and breathes the game, just like his 87-year-old grandpa and famous number one Sydney Swans supporter Kenny Williams.

(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 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 plaintiff's suit for preliminary injunctive relief against its former vice president of operations, following defendant's acceptance of a senior executive position with plaintiff's competitor, Hostess Brands, seeking to protect its trade secrets involving plaintiff's popular line of Thomas' English Muffins, of which defendant was one of only seven people who possessed all of the knowledge necessary to replicate the muffins, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court had discretion to enjoin defendant from working at Hostess to the extent this proposed employment threatened to lead to the misappropriation of trade secrets; 2) district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on its misappropriation of trade secrets claim; 3) district court did not abuse its discretion when, faced with evidence of defendant's suspicious conduct during his final weeks at plaintiff, it determined that a stronger remedy was needed in the interim to protect plaintiff from imminent irreparable harm; 4) district court was correct in concluding that the harm of plaintiff's trade secrets being disclosed to Hostess outweighed the harm to defendant of not being able to commence employment at Hostess until the court made a final determination of the merits following a trial; and 5) district court was correct in concluding that the public interest in preventing the misappropriation of plaintiff's trade secrets outweighs the temporary restriction of defendant's choice of employment.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's state law business tort claims is vacated and remanded, where the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims because: 1) defendant's allegedly inaccurate statements regarding its patent rights concerned conduct taking place entirely in Taiwan; 2) the use of a patented process outside the United States is not an act of patent infringement; and thus, 3) there is no prospect of a future U.S. infringement suit arising out of the Taiwan company's use of the parties' products in Taiwan, and accordingly no prospect of inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts.

(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) - 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.

ELECTION day is tomorrow and members of the Ourimbah Hospital Auxiliary have really raised a sweat.

(United States First Circuit) - Held that a defendant who won a summary judgment motion could not appeal to challenge unflattering statements found in the trial judge's opinion. In this tort lawsuit brought by a Ugandan gay-rights organization, the defendant religious leader successfully obtained summary judgment by arguing lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction but then appealed. The First Circuit concluded that a winner cannot appeal a judgment merely because there are passages in the court's opinion that displease him or her.

(California Court of Appeal) - Refused to quash service of a summons on a company in Hong Kong. The company contended that the service did not adhere to proper Hong Kong procedures and was invalid under international law. Disagreeing, the California Court of Appeal denied writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - In an action against officers and directors of a company in which plaintiff invested, alleging false representations, following a default judgment for plaintiff, the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment on grounds that it did not have sufficient notice of punitive damages under Code of Civil Procedure section 435.115(f) and that it was entitled to mandatory relief under section 473(b), is affirmed where: 1) due process requires that when a plaintiff moves for discovery terminating sanctions and seeks punitive damages, a statement under section 425.111(f) must be served a reasonable time before obtaining those sanctions; and 2) notice must be sufficient to afford a defendant the opportunity to fairly appraise the full amount of damages sought by the time he or she needs to respond and oppose the motion.

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

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Appeals court affirmed district court's decision that the federal tax lien was enforceable even though it had errors on the document. The appeals court held that even with the errors there was adequate notice of the lien, because it conformed to the IRS code.

(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) - Held that the U.S. government was justified in refusing to release certain photographs of detainees taken by U.S. Army personnel at military detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq. The American Civil Liberties Union and several other organizations demanded that the photographs be released under the Freedom of Information Act. The government countered that the photographs were shielded from disclosure by a 2009 law, the Protected National Security Documents Act. Agreeing with the government, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded with directions to enter judgment for the government.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a petition for review brought by various entities challenging the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)'s calculation of certain refunds arising out of the California energy crisis in 2000 and 2001, the petition is: 1) granted in part where FERC acted arbitrarily or capriciously in allocating the refund only to net buyers and not to all market participants; and 2) denied in part as to the question of whether refunds should be netted hourly or a cross the entire refund period where FERC did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its construction of tariffs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's decision to sustain a demurrer by Uber, who argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear a putative class action brought by licensed taxicab drivers because the Public Utilities Code did not apply where the California Public Utilities Commission was in the process of developing rules relating to the company's activites and the second amended complaint failed to state a claim as to all causes of action.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Addressed small-scale solar energy producers' claims that the California Public Utilities Commission's programs do not comply with federal requirements. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that ride-sharing company Uber must comply with administrative subpoenas issued by San Francisco's City Attorney seeking data submitted to the California Public Utility Commission. Affirmed the decision below, rejecting Uber's confidentiality arguments.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal arising from the U.S. Department of Commerce's third administrative review of its antidumping-duty order covering certain steel nails from China, the Court of International Trade's denial of plaintiff's suit to set aside the results of the review is affirmed where the Federal Register notice of initiation of the review constituted notice to plaintiff as a matter of law and fully enabled plaintiff to participate in the review because plaintiff did not show any prejudice from not knowing of the request in the pre-initiation period.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Pleasure-Way purchased vans in the US and converted them into motorhomes at a manufacturing facility in Canada. When they sought to import the motorhomes back into the United States they contested the denial of a favorable tariff rate for goods reentering the US after repair or alteration in Canada or Mexico. However, repair or alteration was held to be less drastic than the remaking of a product into a new or different article, and the court affirmed the judgment of the Court of International Trade imposing the higher rate.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a trade dress action, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there is a genuine fact issue as to whether plaintiff's manner for presenting results in its urine test report was functional under the Lanham Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement and trade secret case arising out of a contract for plaintiff to produce a USB flash drive shaped like a 'PlumbBob' a gem-shaped icon from defendant's computer game, The Sims, the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is: 1) affirmed in part as to the trade secrets claim, although on different grounds. where plaintiff's contribution to the PlumbBob USB drive, a design for the flash drive’s removal from the PlumbBob object, did not derive independent economic value from not being generally known to the public; and 2) reversed in part as to the copyright infringement claim where the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the flash drive was not sufficiently original when compared to the Plumb Bob icon to qualify for copyright protection as a derivative work.

(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.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendants ABC News, a hospital, and attending physician for the nonconsensual filming and subsequent broadcast of decedent's treatment and death at the hospital, the Appellative Division's order is modified and affirmed where: 1) the broadcasting of the footage as part of a documentary series about medical trauma was not so extreme and outrageous as to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim; but 2) plaintiffs have stated a cause of action against the hospital and treating physician for breach of physician-patient confidentiality.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that two riders seriously injured while horseback riding in Wisconsin could not pursue negligence claims against trail and stable operators, because their causes of action were barred by Wisconsin's equine-immunity statute, which blocks recovery for most injuries that result from an inherent risk of equine activities. Affirmed summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings against the riders, respectively.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision of the Court of Federal Claims denying a motion for reconsideration of amended judgment or, in the alternative, relief from final judgment in a dispute relating to bidding on the procurement of medical gasses by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed, in large part, an attorney fee award in a False Claims Act action that had been resolved by settlement. After the defendant agreed to settle the case, the plaintiff (qui tam relator) was entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees as a prevailing party. He appealed arguing that the district court's fee award was too low. The Third Circuit rejected his arguments and affirmed the award except in one narrow respect: on remand the trial court must decide how much to award him in fees for the time spent litigating his fee petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $1.6 million jury verdict in an individual's asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit. Held that there was no admissible evidence that the defendant company supplied asbestos-cement pipes to a worksite in the 1970s; the only evidence was hearsay.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A subcontractor did not owe a duty to indemnify a company for its expenditures in labor and materials in a construction project.

(United States Supreme Court) - In a Social Security disability benefits case, addressed the effect of a vocational expert's refusal to share privately collected data. The applicant's counsel wanted to see data about the labor market that the expert had relied upon in estimating the number of jobs available in the economy for someone with the applicant's characteristics. However, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that, despite the expert's refusal to turn over this private data, her testimony could still be considered "substantial evidence" in federal court. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition for review denied. The EPA did not act contrary to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in adopting a Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous materials are not necessarily "discarded" when they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment. The policy was not arbitrary or capricious.

(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 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 Ninth Circuit) - Held that a worker on an offshore oil platform could not proceed with his California law claim that he was denied overtime pay. The claim was preempted under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Affirmed the dismissal, in relevant part, of his proposed class action.

(United States DC Circuit) - Dismissed. The Wehrum Memo relating to air quality was not a final agency action, so the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear complaints about its contents.