(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 Federal Circuit) - Affirming a district court order denying a motion for attorney fees following the dismissal of a patent infringement suit with prejudice because attorney fees are only available in exceptional circumstances and the court decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain computer-related patent claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter. In this patent infringement case, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent claims at issue failed under the abstract idea exception, because the claims lacked any arguable technical advance over conventional computer and network technology. The patent claims here related to a way to display two sets of information, in a non-overlapping way, on a display screen.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed the dismissal of overtime compensation claims brought by a special agent of the U.S. Secret Service. In a class action complaint, the plaintiff special agent argued that Office of Personnel Management regulations improperly required that certain overtime hours be worked consecutively in order to trigger compensation. Agreeing with his position, the Federal Circuit held that the challenged OPM regulations were contrary to the unambiguous meaning of the relevant statute. The panel thus reversed in relevant part and remanded.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.

(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) - Conviction for assault in the second degree is affirmed and the court held that when a new rule is announced during the one-year grace period for filing a notice of appeal, a judgment becomes final 30 days after sentencing where a defendant does not file a timely direct appeal and does not move for leave to file a late notice of appeal under CPL 460.30 (1).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an insurance action, brought by plaintiff insurance companies seeking declaratory relief, the Appellate Division's order is affirmed where Insurance Law section 5102 does not require no-fault insurance carriers to pay a facility fee to reimburse New York State-accredited office-based surgery centers for the use of their facilities and related support services.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court did not violate the confrontation clause when it prevented defendants in an armed robbery prosecution from cross examining government witnesses about the specific prison terms they avoided through their cooperation with the government.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. A prisoner suing under the 8th Amendment for the prison's failure to treat his nasal polyps claimed he didn't receive notice of a deposition until after he was called out of his cell to meet with one of the defendants in the suit. He refused to answer questions and said he was feeling ill. The lower court dismissed with prejudice as sanctions, but the court of appeals determined that although this is sometimes a proper sanction the lower court had acted too quickly.

(California Court of Appeal) - Denied writ of habeas corpus. Defendant was convicted of lewd acts against two minors under the age of 14. Penal Code 667.61 provides that if there are multiple victims under 14 the sentence is 25 to life. The question in the writ was whether Defendant was given notice of the possibility of a 25 year to life sentence. The appeals court found no due process violation.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a skier could not proceed to trial on her negligence claims alleging that, after hurting her knee, she was helped down the mountain by a ski patrol when the rescue sled in which she was riding went out of control and hit a tree. Affirmed summary judgment for the ski resort.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the portion of a judgment commanding the Department of Finance of California to consider whether certain expenditures fall under the 'goods and services' provision because the failure of the City of Grass Valley to raise the issue in an administrative forum precluded it from trial court relief, but directing the trial court to issue a new writ commanding the Department to consider the City's claim regarding a highway project agreement, and otherwise affirming the denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate in a case relating to the mass dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the state.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the voluntary dismissal of a qui tam action that a group of physicians brought against a company operating allergy treatment clinics. Over the company's objection, the physicians sought to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice as to themselves only, so that their decision to quit would not hamstring the government's efforts against the company elsewhere. The district court granted the dismissal motion, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a construction contractor was entitled to recover attorney fees he incurred in seeking to enforce his right to arbitrate a claim that an Indian tribe failed to pay him for his work.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a property owner's negligence, breach of contract, and other claims arising out of a building construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

A "buy two for the price of one" type of spammer.

You need to contact Mr Mark Van Jas... but what if you are under the age of 18?

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(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) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States DC Circuit) - Petition denied. The Environmental Protection Agency's decision not to issue financial responsibility requirements for the hardrock mining industry was permitted because the agency's interpretation of "risk" received deference and their decision not to regulate was authorized.

(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 Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought against an individual who allegedly downloaded and distributed (i.e., pirated) a movie through peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks. The individual argued that he was not liable for infringement even if the infringing Internet Protocol (IP) address was his, because multiple individuals could connect via his IP address. Agreeing with him and noting that he operated an adult foster care home, the Ninth Circuit held that the complaint failed to state a claim of either direct or contributory infringement.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed sanctions imposed against a defense attorney for filing a frivolous motion seeking prevailing party attorney fees. Held that it was baseless for the attorney to argue that his client was the prevailing party under the Copyright Act, in a case where his client had agreed to pay a monetary settlement to resolve a copyright infringement claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. This appeal presents a question of the scope of statutory damages recoverable under the Copyright Act of 1976. The Act permits the recovery, instead of actual damages, of an award of statutory damages for all infringements of one work. The question is what constitutes “one work” for the purposes of the statute. The appeals court found error in the trial court’s determination that 33 illustrations constituted “one work” and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a constitutional challenge to the Natural Gas Act. Landowners along the path of a proposed natural gas pipeline brought this action disputing the constitutionality of various provisions of the Natural Gas Act. Agreeing with the district court, the Fourth Circuit held that the suit must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the grounds that the landowners ought to have brought their claims through the agency review process laid out in the Natural Gas Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that an environmental group was not entitled to a writ of mandate directing the California Department of Conservation to order the immediate closure of oil and gas wells injecting fluids into certain underground aquifers. The environmental group argued that the department had violated its duty under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to protect the aquifers. Unpersuaded, the First Appellate District held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Third Circuit) - Denied a petition for review of a Pennsylvania state regulators' decision to grant a Clean Water Act certification to a natural gas pipeline project. An environmental organization raised various procedural and substantive arguments against the environmental regulators' issuance of a water quality certification. On judicial review, the Third Circuit held that the environmentalists' challenge failed on the merits. Prior to reaching the merits, the panel discussed in detail questions regarding its jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a jury's finding that an investor was defrauded by an oil exploration company, which used his investment only to pay off preexisting debts. Affirmed the judgment, in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - Rejected an environmental advocacy group's challenge to an environmental impact report prepared by the California Department of Conservation addressing the effects of hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation treatments. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit involving the raisin industry and the California Marketing Act of 1937 (CMA), Food & Agr. Code section 58601 et seq., the trial court's interpretation of the CMA's requirement, that the Secretary of California's Department of Food and Agriculture, in adopting a marketing order for industry advertising or research, must find that the order will tend to effectuate the declared purposes and policies of the CMA, is reversed where it erroneously limits the CMA's applicability only to Great Depression-like economic circumstances.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a consolidated multi-district class action against Google and Viacom raising concerns over online privacy, the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiffs' claims are affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court held that: 1) The Video Privacy Protection Act permits plaintiffs to sue a person who discloses, not who receives, information related to viewers' consumption of video-related services; 2) plaintiffs have adequately alleged a claim for intrusion upon seclusion against Viacom; and 3) the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 does not preempt plaintiffs' state-law privacy claim.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an employment discrimination action, contending that defendant-employer interfered with and retaliated against plaintiff, a former employee, in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and failed to accommodate and discriminatorily discharged plaintiff in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is: 1) affirmed as to plaintiff's FMLA retaliation claim and ADA claims; but 2) vacated as to plaintiff's FMLA interference claim where genuine issues of material fact exist.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the Court of International Trade's affirmation of the US Department of Commerce's findings following a review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Reversed. The court reversed the dismissal of a class action consumer fraud and deceptive business case involving cat food labeled prescription cat food that was not materially different from regular cat food. The fraud claim was sufficiently pled and the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's safe harbor didn't apply.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of summary judgment in favor of an officer who used deadly force in an arrest was proper since there weren't issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness. There was no genuine issue of material fact.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The County of Los Angeles successfully brought a conservatorship action under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that allows involuntary detention of persons who are dangerous or gravely disabled due to mental disorder. Conservatee appealed. The appeals court found no reversible error.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. D.C. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that she was not advised of her right to a jury trial, was not afforded an evidentiary hearing, was medicated without her consent and had ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeals court found no reversible error, but cautioned the trial court to state its findings as to the factors set out in Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center (1987) 209 Cal.App.3d 1303.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. M.M. appeals appointment of a conservator under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act on the grounds that his trial did not begin within 25 days of his jury demand. The appeals court held that M.M. forfeited the contention because the delay was due to his own counsel’s requests to accommodate his schedule.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming a district court conclusion in a putative securities class action relating to a corporate merger that the Securities Exchange Act does not create a private right of action for shareholders confronted with a tender offer and dismissing the complaint as to one defendant, who was not a proper defendant, holding that the Exchange Act requires a showing of negligence rather than scienter for the claims brought, and remanding for the district court to reconsider the defense motion to dismiss under the negligence standard.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed summary judgment in favor of two drug store chains in a dispute with a shopping mall over common area maintenance fees. The case raised questions about real property rights and reverse triangular mergers.

ProgStock Festival Was Founded To Give Artists And Fans In The Genre Of Progressive Rock A Place To Play

Award-winning Recording Artist MARINA V Teams Up With Legendary Singer/songwriter, DAN NAVARRO, For Their Artistic Rendition Of PAT BENATAR'S 1984 GRAMMY-nominated Hit, WE BELONG

(United States DC Circuit) - Remanded for dismissal. The Electronic Privacy Information Center sued following a US Department of Commerce announcement that citizenship would be among the questions included in the 2020 census. EPIC sought to enjoin the question because they claim their members were entitled to a Privacy Impact Assessment. However, EPIC lacked standing to proceed with the suit.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. The proper scope of judicial review of a school district’s decision is an independent judicial review. Such a review requires a hearing and making specific factual findings. The appeals court remanded for reconsideration of the writ petition under correct standards.