(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a lawsuit that a bankruptcy trustee brought against officers and directors of the debtor company and others who allegedly participated in a securities fraud scheme, affirmed a jury verdict in part and reversed it in part.

(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.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a labor and employment action, arising after plaintiff was allegedly terminated by his employer, PG&E, for retaliating against a safety inspector who raised issues about his project, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where regardless of whether plaintiff was an at-will employee, PG&E established good cause for terminating him.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the judgment and remanding the case of a woman whose home had a distressing electric charge, particularly in the shower, as the result of a power plant next door because the trial court erred in admitting irrelevant evidence relating to stray voltage incidents involving prior owners and tenants and that the admission of that evidence was prejudicial.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that defendant rural power cooperatives were entitled to remove a case from state to federal court. The lawsuit alleged that they had unlawfully failed to provide certain refunds to their members. Reversed a remand order, in these three consolidated cases.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. Plaintiff filed suit against the Commissioners of the California Public Utilities commission alleging that the California Renewable Market Adjust Tariff (Re-MAT) program violated the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, but declined to grant Plaintiff a contract with PG&E at a specified price. The Ninth Circuit held that the Re-MAT program violated the PURPA and therefore is preempted by PURPA, but the Ninth Circuit would not grant the contract because PG&E was not a party to the suit.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the US Court of International Trade's decision sustaining the International Trade Commission's finding that Chinese imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules were being dumped on the US market, damaging domestic industry, because these determinations were supported by substantial evidence on the record.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's grant of a declaratory judgment to the plaintiff that it hadn't breached any contractual agreement with Korea, but refusing a permanent injunction barring Korea from suing them in Korean courts in a contract suit between a US defense contractor and Korea in a complex set of exchanges involved in upgrading the country's fighter planes.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal from US Court of International Trade (ITC). Plaintiffs sought preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of Presidentially imposed tariff. ITC denied preliminary injunction and appeals court affirmed. The President has authority under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose tariffs and where a statute authorizes a Presidential determination, courts have no authority to look behind that determination to see if it is support by the record.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the denial of an importer's challenge to an import duty levied by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The company argued that the correct duty rate on its imported light-emitting diode (LED) candles was 2 percent rather than 3.9 percent. On appeal from the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Federal Circuit agreed with the government that the LED candles fell within a classification that was subject to a 3.9 percent import duty. The panel thus affirmed summary judgment for the government.

(United States Second Circuit) - Dismissal of plaintiff's suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is reversed where plaintiff's stated claims under the Lanham Act, alleging false advertising and unfair competition, were sufficient for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6).

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)

(California Court of Appeal) - In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.

(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 the bench trial finding that valid patents still existed in a longstanding pharmaceutical drug called Aveed after defendant Custopharm was sued for patent infringement by Endo Pharmaceuticals and Bayer after seeking FDA approval to produce a generic version of Aveed.

(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 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.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a trip and fall action, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant is reversed where there was dispute as to whether defendant or an adjacent business’s portion of a sidewalk was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for criminal possession of a weapon and resisting arrest is affirmed where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in relieving defendant’s attorney and appointing new counsel. Attorney’s employer, New York County Defender Services, represented the key government witness in a separate case arising from the same occurrence and refused to permit defendant’s attorney to search for and potentially call him as a witness.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for sexual conduct against a child in the first degree is affirmed where the trial court did not commit reversible error in admitting rebuttal testimony intended prove defendant’s sole witness was biased and motivated to fabricate evidence. The Court clarified that the Appellate Division may rely on the record to discern an unarticulated predicate for the trial court’s evidentiary rulings.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Sentence for robbery in the first degree based on a prior conviction for assault in the first degree is vacated and remanded for resentencing. The Court held that the revocation of probation under Penal Code section 60.01 is not the analogue of an annulment of a sentence and concluded that the original sentencing date controls for the purpose of determining the eligible look-back period in Penal Law section 70.04 for prior conviction sentencing.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for robbery in the second degree is reversed where the admission of a non-testifying codefendant's out-of-court statements to establish an element of the crime violated defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968).

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for multiple counts of robbery and larceny is affirmed where the People's use of defendant's non-privileged telephone conversations, made while in custody at Rikers Island, did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the dissemination of recordings of conversations at the District Attorney's request does not violate state law.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree murder and fist degree assault is affirmed where the trial court did not err in refusing to remove three spectators, silently wearing t-shirts bearing a photograph of one of the victims, from the courtroom during summation at defense counsel's request.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for second-degree burglary and robbery is affirmed where the trial court did not err in admitting into evidence subscriber information in prepaid cell phone records as nonhearsay evidence within a business record, because the information was not introduced for the truth of the matters asserted.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In a negligence action, the Appellate Division's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment is reversed where there is a material question as to whether the escape of defendant's calf onto the road was a proximate cause of decedent's death in car accident while she was trying to assist.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. Convictions for using or carrying a firearm to commit a federal crime of violence were remanded for resentencing after previous 7th Circuit opinions and the Supreme Court's decision in US v. Davis found the term "crime of violence" to be unconstitutionally vague.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded for dismissal. State child protective services agency employees were entitled to qualified immunity in a suit alleging constitutional violation in the removal of three children from their mother's custody under a temporary removal order.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An unconstitutional conviction did not occur when an attorney confirmed he no longer disputed restitution while in chambers but repeated this withdrawal in open court.

(United States DC Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. A pork farmer's suit alleging that the government unlawfully permitted funds for promoting the pork industry to be used for lobbying instead lacked constitutional standing. There was no evidence of misuse of funds that resulted in an injury in fact.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Injunctions against the state preventing it from implementing a plan to purge voter rolls based on third party information rather than directly contacting voters was affirmed because plaintiff organizations established standing and the decision was not an abuse of discretion.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The grant of a defense motion for summary judgement in an Eighth Amendment claim brought by a prisoner against prison nurses he says were deliberately indifferent to his needs as a sickle cell disease sufferer was proper because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies against one nurse and the record wouldn't support a jury finding on his claim against the other.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed complaint by Cook County residents raising Second Amendment claims challenging a ban on assault rifles because the issue had already been addressed by the court.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of two individual defendants in a Fourteenth Amendment case arising from the self-mutilation of a man held at a medical health complex was upheld. There was insufficient evidence of their culpability.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case to determine whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 (2014 Law) to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law the district court's judgment that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA, but its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In an action challenging defendant Towson University's refusal to allow plaintiff to return to playing football after he suffered a near-death heat-stroke induced coma requiring a liver transplant and additional surgeries, the district court's judgment for plaintiff under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act is reversed where plaintiff was not otherwise qualified to participate in defendant's football program under defendant's reasonably applied Return-to-Play Policy.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a dispute arising out of the alleged improper use of deflated footballs by professional football athlete Tom Brady, the District Court's vacation of the NFL Commissioner's award confirming the discipline of Brady, based upon the court's finding of fundamental unfairness and lack of notice, is reversed where: 1) the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement; and 2) his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness.

(United States Third Circuit) - In an appeal to determine where whether SB 2460, which the New Jersey Legislature enacted in 2014 to partially repeal certain prohibitions on sports gambling, violates federal law, the District Court's holding that the 2014 Law violates the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. sections 3701-3704, is affirmed where PASPA by its terms, prohibits states from authorizing by law sports gambling, and the 2014 Law does exactly that.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit for negligence and willful misconduct against soccer league defendants, arising out of the sexual abuse of plaintiff by her former soccer coach, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrers to the fourth amended complaint on the ground that they had no duty to protect plaintiff from criminal conduct by a third party and dismissing the defendants is reversed where defendants had a duty to conduct criminal background checks of all adults who would have contact with children involved in their programs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a suit brought following the break up of plaintiff's relationship with a former boxing champion, alleging invasion of privacy (both public disclosure of private facts and false light portrayal), defamation and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, based on defendant's social media postings about the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy and its relationship to the couple's separation and his comments during a radio interview concerning the extent to which plaintiff had undergone cosmetic surgery procedures, the trial court's denial of defendant's special motion to strike those causes of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is reversed as to with respect to plaintiff's claims for defamation and false light portrayal, as well as her cause of action for public disclosure of private facts based on defendant's comments about plaintiff's cosmetic surgery. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit against a principal-defendant of a private high school brought by a student's parent-plainitff, alleging that plaintiff's First Amendment right of freedom of assembly and his state-law right to be free from the intentional infliction of emotional distress were violated by defendant in banning him from attending virtually all school events, on or off school property, because of his opposition to defendant's bullying and harassing efforts to compel plaintiff's daughter to remain a member of the girls varsity basketball team, the district court's judgment is: 1) affirmed in part as to the denial of defendant's motion for qualified immunity, to the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property to attend spectator sports contests to which the public was invited, and caused plaintiff's removal from a non-school, privately owned stadium at which Johnson was present as an invitee of the owner; and 2) reversed in part where qualified immunity should have been granted to defendant the extent that he barred plaintiff from entering school property for purposes other than attending sports contests, given the lack of an established First Amendment right of general access to school property.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - An award of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) benefits to a former NFL player displaying symptoms of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is affirmed where the board of the NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan failed to follow a reasoned process or explain the basis of its determination to deny benefits.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the trial court's dismissal of a second amended complaint in a lawsuit alleging defamation and deceit related to parents' complaints about a baseball team coach because the grievance, filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, failed to satisfy the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act.

(United States Second Circuit) - Affirming the denial of the North American Soccer League's motion for preliminary injunction seeking Division II designation pending the resolution of its antitrust case against the United States Soccer Federation because they had failed to demonstrate a clear likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.

(Supreme Court of California) - In a government contracts dispute alleging the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, the Court of Appeals judgment overturning the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants demurrer, is reversed where plaintiffs' allegations -- that they had submitted the second lowest bids on several contracts awarded to defendant, and that their bids would have been accepted but for defendant's wrongful conduct during the bidding process -- are insufficient because: 1) public works contracts are a unique species of commercial dealings; 2) in the contracts at issue here, the public entities retained broad discretion to reject all bids; 3) the bids were sealed, and there were no postsubmission negotiations; 4) in awarding the contracts, the public entities could give no preference to any bidder based on past dealings, and were required to accept the lowest responsible bid; and 5) in these highly regulated circumstances, plaintiffs had 'at most a hope for an economic relationship and a desire for future benefit.' Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal to determine meaning of special factor in 28 USC 2412(d)(2)(A), Equal Access to Justice Act. When special factor is found the statutory attorney fee rate is increased. The Claims Court found special factor existed in a bid protest claim where the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was stated to have acted arbitrarily and awarded plaintiff attorney fees increased by special factor. The Federal Court of Appeals held that the Claims Court erred and there was no special factor. Egregious misconduct by the HHS does not constitute a special factor.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.