(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant was judged a mentally disordered offender (MDO) for bipolar disorder. With his bipolar disorder in remission, a re-commitment order was sought for Defendant’s pedophilia. The appeals court held that a re-commitment order must be based on the same mental disorder that was the basis of the original commitment.

WHILE most players his age have jumped two or three clubs, Mitch Aubusson has stayed loyal to the Roosters and joined some exclusive company in the process.

(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 Fourth Circuit) - Sentence and conviction of various offenses arising from his leadership of schemes, wherein fraud was systematically utilized to keep his real estate empire afloat, are affirmed over defendant's claims that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of the crimes alleged, that the trial court gave the jury an erroneous and prejudicial willful blindness instruction, and that his aggregate sentence of 216 months is substantively unreasonable.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the district court's findings regarding the number of victims of a multi-million dollar real estate Ponzi scheme who suffered substantial financial hardship as defined by the US Sentencing Guidelines, but vacating and remanding because the court erred in imposing the five-year occupational restriction on his three-year term of supervised release because it exceeded the statutory maximum.

(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated federal embezzlement charges against a foreclosure referee who was also formerly a New York state senator. The defendant argued that the charges against him for allegedly embezzling escrowed funds from sales of foreclosed properties should be dismissed because the five-year statute of limitations on the offense had run. On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed with prosecutors that the district court should not have granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges as time-barred.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction and sentence of a law firm office manager for participating in a scheme to defraud insurance companies by submitting client claims for fraudulent chiropractic treatments. The conviction was for conspiracy and mail fraud.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of several patents related to systems and methods for indexing information stored in wide access databases. The district court agreed with the defendant and held all asserted claims invalid as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. section 101.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appeals Board (PTO Board) that certain claims relating to a wireless communications system are not patentable. In vacating and remanding, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTO Board did not consider portions of plaintiff’s reply.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.

(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.

SATURDAY marks the start of another Sydney Shires season – and Warringah are gunning for the top four.

(UT Court of Appeals) - No. 20180488-CA

(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In disciplinary proceeding against an attorney for various misconduct, including allegations that he failed to properly supervise the firm's bookkeeper resulting in misappropriation of client funds and that he breached his fiduciary duty by failing to safeguard those funds, the order of the Appellate Division is modified to dismiss the charge for failing to timely comply with the Grievance Committee's lawful demands for information where the imposition of this separate charge is unsupported by the record.

(United States Second Circuit) - Judgment dismissing this qui tam action alleging that defendants engaged in a scheme of kickbacks, bribes, or rebates designed to induce referrals of Medicare and Medicaid business, is affirmed, where: 1) defendant's former general counsel, through his conduct in this qui tam action, violated his ethical obligations under New York Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(c) which, in relevant part, prohibits lawyers from using confidential information of a former client protected by Rule 1.6 to the disadvantage of the former client, except to the extent that the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent the client from committing a crime; and 2) the district court did not err by dismissing the complaint as to all defendants, and disqualifying plaintiff, its general partners, and its outside counsel on the basis that such measures were necessary to avoid prejudicing defendants in any subsequent litigation on these facts.

(California Court of Appeal) - In this case, plaintiff parole agent was disciplined by his employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, for conducting a purportedly unlawful search of a residence. After an administrative hearing, the discipline was upheld by defendant State Personnel Board. Denial of plaintiff's administrative mandamus petition seeking to overturn the Board's decision is reversed, where: 1) plaintiff was entitled to actual notice of the contents of the "Letter of Intent" within one year of the date of discovery, not constructive notice by mail as perfected by his employer; and 2) service by mail was untimely as it was received after the outer limit of the relevant notification period.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a pain management physician did not have to produce the medical records of five of his patients pursuant to a subpoena issued by an investigator with the Medical Board of California, because the board did not establish good cause for the subpoena. Reversed the decision below, in this case involving prescriptions for controlled substances.

(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 jury verdict for plaintiff is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part where: 1) defendant’s liability for trade secret misappropriation regarding a photodiode array structure is affirmed; 2) four patent infringement claims are reversed and four are affirmed; and 3) monetary damage awards are vacated and remanded for further consideration.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary judgment in favor of defendant in a copyright case. Plaintiff compiled a listing of individual consumer names with their addresses and sought copyright protection. The District Court found in favor of the defendant and against the copyright claims. The 9th Circuit held that the compilation of names and addresses is copyrightable, but plaintiff had failed to establish that its copyright had been infringed. Affirmed as to the infringement claim for the defendant, but reversed as to the state law trade secret claim.

(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 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.

FINDING the net for the Wanderers fulfilled one of teenage soccer star Ben Morrison’s dreams — but he has higher goals in his sights.

THE WAITING is over for voters in the marginal seat of Robertson, with Liberal MP Lucy Wicks claiming victory three days after election day, despite an evident swing to Labor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed judgment notwithstanding verdict (JNOV) in favor of Defendants in part and granted new trial. Defendants, Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (JCCI) manufactured talcum products that Plaintiff’s allege caused injury. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants filed a motion for JNOV as to liability and punitive damages and for a new trial. The trial court granted the motions. The appeals court affirmed the JNOV in favor of Johnson & Johnson, but partially reversed as to Defendant, JCCI. Appeals court found no malice to support punitive damages, but found causation evidence in conflict and affirmed granting a new trial to JCCI.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff filed a petition for a workplace violence restraining order against Defendant using the mandatory Judicial Council form. The trial court granted the workplace violence restraining order. Appeals court reversed concluding that Defendant was not afforded the required notice under Code of Civil Procedure 527.8 and reversed the ruling.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant, Cosby, raped her in 1982. Defendant responded by claiming Plaintiff was lying in several press releases. Plaintiff filed suit for defamation. Cosby moved to strike the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied Cosby's motion to strike and the appeals court held that none of Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the anti-SLAPP statute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Plaintiff pled no contest to a felony charge of child abuse for injuries to his infant son, but filed this suit against Defendant, Fire Department, for the emergency medical aid that allegedly led to the death of his infant son. Defendant filed a summary judgment motion that was granted by the trial court on the grounds of government immunity. The appeals court held that government immunity applies to situations where fire fighters are supplying firefighting services, not emergency medical services.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for rehearing granted. A lawsuit by a police officer hit by a thrown object during a protest against Black Lives Matter was properly dismissed, but his suit against the protest organizer should have been permitted to proceed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss based on foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereignty Immunity Act in a securities lawsuit filed by the shareholder of an Argentine petroleum company against the Argentine Republic which held a majority of shares in the company. In affirming the denial and rejecting the claim of sovereign immunity, the appeals court noted that the plaintiff was seeking relief for injuries caused by commercial, rather than sovereign, activity.