(United States Second Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that Time Warner's requiring consumers to lease cable boxes in order to receive a package of television channels violates the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C., section 1, the district court's dismissal is affirmed where plaintiff's third amended complaint fails to: 1) plausibly allege that the cable boxes are a separate product from the premium cable channels; and 2) plausibly allege defendant's market power in the particular product and geographic markets defined in the complaint.

(United States Second Circuit) - In an action for copyright infringement brought by successors-in-interest of the estates of William 'Bud' Abbott and Lou Costello against the author and producers of the play The Hand of God, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed where, although defendants' verbatim incorporation of more than a minute of the iconic Who's on First? comedy routine in their commercial production was not a fair use of the material, plaintiffs fail plausibly to allege a valid copyright interest.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a former on-air radio personality's action for disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related employment claims, the trial court's grant of summary judgment to employer-defendant is reversed where material issues of fact exist regarding each of plaintiff's claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a suit brought by a group of broadcast stations and copyright holders against an entity that operates a service that uses antennas to capture over-the-air broadcast programming, much of it copyrighted, and then uses the Internet to retransmit such programming to paying subscribers, all without the consent or authorization of the copyright holders, the district court's partial summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed where a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is not a 'cable system' eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the district court's summary judgment in favor of Fox, holding that their use of the name 'Empire' was protected by the First Amendment and therefore was outside of the reach of the Lanham Act and their use of the word as a show title did not infringe on a record label's trademark rights.

(United States Supreme Court) - Held that Title VII's charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional and thus is subject to forfeiture if tardily asserted. The issue involved whether an employer waited too long to dispute that a discrimination plaintiff filed a proper complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before initiating suit. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

(United States Supreme Court) - Affirmed in part. Defendants were charged with Hobbs Act robbery and also charged under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924c which authorizes heightened penalties for using a weapon. The Fifth Circuit held that Sec. 924 c 3 B is unconstitutionally vague because it did not provide a reliable way to determine which crimes would qualify for heightened penalties. The US Supreme Court agreed holding that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924 c 3 B is unconstitutional for vagueness and remanded the case.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Even if an attorney's failure to object to a question about his immigration status during a murder trial had been ineffectual assistance it was not prejudicial.

Nail biting action comes to All Phones Arena on Friday May 20 and Saturday May 21 with US stuntman and action sports champion Travis Pastrana leading a star-studded team for the 10th anniversary Nitro Circus Tour.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that some, but not all, claims in a telecommunications patent were unpatentable as obvious. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determinations made in an review.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied. A man on death row could not show that a reasonable jurist would debate whether the district court abused its discretion denying a motion to reopen his final judgment and for stay of execution and did not establish circumstances justifying the exercise of equitable discretion.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Even if an attorney's failure to object to a question about his immigration status during a murder trial had been ineffectual assistance it was not prejudicial.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A Texas bank robbery was properly considered a crime of violence and it was a second or subsequent offense in relation to an attempt made two days earlier.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that some, but not all, claims in a telecommunications patent were unpatentable as obvious. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determinations made in an review.

(United States Third Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit for interference with contract, unfair competition, and misappropriation of trade secrets, in connection with a technology for manufacturing a critical intermediate chemical used in manufacturing nylon, district court's denial of defendant's motion to either dismiss or stay the litigation in favor of arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the Tribunal's holding that it does not have jurisdiction over defendant moots this appeal, and given the Tribunal's ruling, it is clear that the district court could not have enforced the arbitration clause as defendant had urged; and 2) because defendant's appeal from the denial of its motion to dismiss under section 3 of the FAA is moot and must be dismissed, its appeal from the district court's denial of its discretionary motion to stay must also be dismissed for lack of pendent appellate jurisdiction.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a vehicle inspection company that leased land from the U.S. Navy failed to demonstrate that county tax authorities overvalued its leasehold interest by assuming that the lease would be extended beyond its original term. Affirmed the dismissal of the taxpayer's suit seeking a tax refund.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an action that implicates the public‘s interest in transparency and a public agency‘s interest in confidential communications with its legal counsel, the Court of Appeal’s judgment concerning whether billing invoices are privileged is reversed where invoices for work in pending and active legal matters are so closely related to attorney-client communications that they implicate the heart of the privilege rule.

(United States Second Circuit) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a complaint alleging breach of fiduciary duty by defendant, a former partner and fifty percent owner of plaintiff corporation, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants is affirmed over plaintiff's meritless arguments that: 1) the district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel; and 2) Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code prevents the district court from giving preclusive effect to the Cayman court's factual findings.

(Supreme Court of California) - Holding that under California law, a dissolved law firm has no property interest in legal matters handled on an hourly basis and therefore no interest in profits generated by a former partners' work on hourly fee matters pending at the time of dissolution.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order disqualifying an attorney from representing a partnership. The attorney had been hired for this purpose by one of two partners who were embroiled in litigation with each other.

(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)

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a suit for infringement of patents directed to a design for protective goggles used by military establishments, law enforcement agencies, hunters and shooters, district court's denial of plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction is vacated and remanded where the district court erred in applying the Second Circuit's heightened standard of proof of likelihood of success on the merits, instead of the Federal Circuit standard for consideration of whether to impose such relief.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a judgment that a patent for a pharmaceutical product was invalid on the ground of obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that obviousness was not proved by clear and convincing evidence.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that some, but not all, claims in a telecommunications patent were unpatentable as obvious. Finding no error, the Federal Circuit affirmed the determinations made in an review.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a class action securities violation case, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to allege a misrepresentation or omission of material fact regarding claims arising from a spin-off; 2) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter regarding claims arising from a Restatement filed with the SEC; 3) plaintiffs failed to allege a strong inference of scienter on the part of defendant-CPA firm, and thus dismissal of a section 10(b) claim was appropriate; and 4) dismissal of plaintiffs' section 20(a) claim was proper as there was no predicate violation of the securities laws.

Latido Music, The Premiere 24-hour Digital Television Network Dedicated To Latin Music, Has Announced The Formation Of Its Advisory Board

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The court found that Senate Bill No. 1107 directly conflicts with Political Reform Act of 1974 and does not further the purposes of the Act.

Tickets On Sale For New London-based Music Conference At Southbank Centre’s Purcell Room On September 24

ASM Completes Its 150th Film Score And Retains Jonathan Firstenberg As North American Rep

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed most of a judgment against a mobile home park. The residents contended that the park breached their contracts and violated various laws, and a jury rendered a verdict in their favor. However, the California Court of Appeal held that the award of damages could not be sustained under any of the theories of liability presented to the jury.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court dismissed a case involving an exclusive sale agreement for failure to state a claim because the contract was not in force at the time of the alleged breach and the district court did not misinterpret the contract's automatic renewal clause.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed most of a judgment against a mobile home park. The residents contended that the park breached their contracts and violated various laws, and a jury rendered a verdict in their favor. However, the California Court of Appeal held that the award of damages could not be sustained under any of the theories of liability presented to the jury.

Latido Music, The Premiere 24-hour Digital Television Network Dedicated To Latin Music, Has Announced The Formation Of Its Advisory Board

The Rolling Stones will be revisiting their historic 2016 show in Cuba for this week's installment of their special Extra Licks

Created By James Hannigan, Award-winning Composer And Game Music Connect Co-founder, Screen Music Connect Builds On The Success Of The Sold-out Game Music Conferences

Ovationguitars.com Is Revised For 2019 And Beyond

The Second Edition Of The Book Music Supervision, And The Newly Launched ‘How To Be A Music Supervisor’ Online Learning Platform, Introduces A Much-needed Educational Resource

Gov. Jared Polis took a hopeful, if cautious, look forward Tuesday night at a world in which COVID-19 is no longer a raging force that is occupying the minds and psyches of almost everyone in Colorado.

Problem hops on the mic with his lyrics.

Brian Courtney Wilson and Travis Greene takes the hot seat!