(California Court of Appeal) - Trial court's grant of a county sheriff's department's petition for a writ of administrative mandate seeking to vacate a hearing officer's decision concerning a terminated correctional officer's request for a Pitchess motion is reversed where: 1) an administrative hearing officer may rule on a Pitchess motion where Pitchess discovery is relevant; and 2) if Pitchess discovery is relevant to an officer's defense in a section 3304(b) hearing, the officer who is subject to discipline must have the opportunity to demonstrate the relevance of the personnel records of other officers and to obtain the records if they are relevant.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(United States Eighth Circuit) - In an action by a company which provides security and consulting services to casino operators, seeking a declaratory judgment that an Indian tribal court lacked jurisdiction and an order compelling arbitration, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the tribal courts could exercise adjudicatory jurisdiction over the tribe's claims against plaintiff for trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion of tribal trade secrets. However, the judgment is reversed in part where the tribal court did not have jurisdiction under the second Montana exception over the tribe's claim for conversion of tribal funds.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action for copyright infringement and breach of an employment agreement arising out of defendant's sale of a toy doll idea to a competitor of plaintiff instead of disclosing and assigning it to plaintiff as required by the agreement, an injunction in favor of plaintiff is vacated where: 1) the district court’s imposition of a constructive trust forcing defendant-corporation to hand over its sweat equity was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated; 2) because the agreement’s language was ambiguous and some extrinsic evidence supported each party’s reading, the district court erred by granting summary judgment to plaintiff on this issue and holding that the agreement clearly assigned works made outside the scope of defendant's employment; and 3) the district court’s error in construing the employment agreement was sufficient to vacate the copyright injunction.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a case involves trade secrets relating to opaque polymers, which are hollow spheres used as paint additives for interior and exterior paints to increase the paint's opacity, the International Trade Commission's (ITC) decision, imposing default judgment sanctions for spoliation of evidence and entering a limited exclusion order against plaintiff, is affirmed where the Commission did not abuse its discretion in entering default judgment as a sanction for plaintiff's spoliation of evidence and further did not abuse its discretion in entering the limited exclusion order.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a shareholder derivative lawsuit alleging that casino resort board of director defendants breached their fiduciary duties, the District Court's dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 is affirmed where: 1) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2) was improper because there were American citizens on both sides of the case; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the shareholders failed to comply with Rule 23.1 or state law governing demand futility; and 3) there was no reversible error if the district court considered materials extraneous to the complaint.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an enforcement action filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) alleging that the defendants participated in a scheme to defraud investors by reporting millions of dollars in revenue that were never realized, the District Court's judgment in favor of defendant-corporate officers is vacated where: 1) Rule 13a-14 of the Securities Exchange Act provided the SEC with a cause of action not only against Chief Executive Officers and Chief Financial Officers who did not file the required certifications, but also against CEOs and CFOs who certified false or misleading statements; and 2) the disgorgement remedy authorized under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act applied regardless of whether a restatement was caused by the personal misconduct of an issuer's CEO and CFO or by other issuer misconduct.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a health insurance company did not violate the Affordable Care Act's Medical Loss Ratio provision, which requires an insurer to pay a rebate to enrollees if it uses less than 80 percent of the revenue it takes in to pay medical claims. Affirmed a dismissal, in this proposed class action lawsuit brought by health insurance enrollees.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that insurers that paid a claim arising from the failure of a floating oil-drilling platform could not proceed with a subrogation claim against an engineering firm that helped secure the platform to the ocean floor. Also addressed an arbitrability issue. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that an insurance company was not liable for bad faith for failing to settle a medical malpractice claim for the policy limit. Affirmed a JMOL against the claims of an outpatient surgical center.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. An insurer had to replace the siding on an entire building whose south and west sides were damaged by a storm because the old siding was no longer available and the new siding didn't match.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Plaintiff was cited for wage and hour violations. Plaintiff contended that it could require its employees to work “on-duty” meal periods less than 30 minutes. The appeals court found that an employer must provide meal periods of at least 30 minutes regardless of whether they are on-duty or off-duty.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. A lawsuit alleging unequal pay due to gender discrimination and retaliation that lost on all counts at jury trial was affirmed. The jury instructions and verdict forms did not prejudice the case.

(California Court of Appeal) - Plaintiff applied for disability retirement. His employer disputed his retirement and his claim of industrial causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board found that the disability was industrial, but that he was barred from receiving retirement benefits because his claim was untimely. The appeals court held that the industrial causation claim was timely and reversed the WCAB order and remanded with directions to grant Plaintiff’s claim.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the limits of a State's power to tax a trust. Struck down a North Carolina requirement that a trust must pay income tax to the State whenever the trust's beneficiaries live in the State -- regardless of whether the beneficiaries have received, can demand, or will ever receive a distribution of trust income. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, in this due process challenge brought by a family trust.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reversing the pre-discovery dismissal of a wrongful termination claim filed by an in-house patent attorney against their former employer, L'Oreal, alleging that he was terminated for his refusal to violate ethical rules on their behalf because, as the court put it, his allegations were more than skin-deep.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed an order disqualifying a law firm from an insurance coverage case based on a newly hired associate's conflict of interest. While the disqualification ruling was pending on appeal, the discovery associate left the 500-plus attorney firm. Based on this development, the Fourth Appellate District reversed the disqualification order and returned the case to the trial court with directions to reweigh the competing disqualification considerations in light of Kirk v. First American Title Ins. Co., 183 Cal. App. 4th 776 (2010).

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a law firm was disqualified from representing a party in an unfair business practices case due to a conflict of interest. Reversed the denial of a disqualification motion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an attorney committed misconduct by manifesting gender bias. Reported him to the State Bar. The attorney had filed a notice of appeal that referred to a female judicial officer's ruling as succubustic, a word that refers to a demon assuming female form that has sexual intercourse with men in their sleep.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order disqualifying attorneys. The appeals court held that no evidence had been presented that Plaintiff's attorneys possessed confidential attorney-client privileged information relevant to the suit and that if there was a conflict other lawyers in the law firm could represent Plaintiff.

(United States DC Circuit) - Held that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo were not liable for allegedly conspiring to flood the market of online search results with information about so-called scam locksmiths, in order to extract additional advertising revenue. The Communications Decency Act barred this lawsuit brought by more than a dozen locksmith companies. Affirmed a dismissal.

(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.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a divided decision by the International Trade Commission, finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. section 1337, based on the Commission's holding of invalidity of certain asserted claims of appellant's patent that describes single-brew coffee machines, the Commission's decision is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Commission's holding that all asserted claims are invalid for lack of written description.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying petitions for review challenging the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's authority to issue permits for US long-haul operations to Mexico-domiciled trucking companies.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a patent action, the International Trade Commission's limited exclusion order for the import of certain network devices by Artista Networks, Inc., for infringing 3 patents belonging to Cisco Systems while finding no infringement on 2 other patents, is affirmed where the Commission's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

(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 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 First Circuit) - Appeal from a partial summary judgment grant for defendant is dismissed in a trademark and trade-dress case involving a car manufacturer and the manufacturer of replica vehicles where plaintiff's appeal was moot.

(United States Eleventh Circuit) - Judgment against plaintiffs on their claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, and unjust enrichment, and judgment for one counter-claimant that a settlement agreement barred plaintiffs from bringing the present suit, are affirmed, as plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Where plaintiffs failed to file a postverdict motion regarding the settlement, they cannot raise it on appeal.

(United States Sixth Circuit) - In a case arising from defendant's use of the domain name www.audisport.com to sell goods and merchandise displaying Audi's name and trademarks, summary judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees to Audi on trademark, trade dress, and AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claims are affirmed where: 1) there was a likelihood of confusion for purposes of trademark infringement, and defenses to the claim including laches, consent, and fair use, failed; 2) trademark dilution was proven; 3) a finding that defendant violated the ACPA was proper; 4) injunctive relief was warranted; and 5) given his bad faith use of counterfeit marks, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a).

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.

(California Court of Appeal) - In suit alleging dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising regarding a kitchen device known as the "Tartmaster," order granting directed verdict for defendants on trade dress claims, and finding for defendants on other claims are affirmed as there was no error or abuse of discretion.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - In plaintiff's suit against its insurer, arising from an underlying suit against the plaintiff over its marketing of Christmas lights for copying packaging design and for using false and deceptive language, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) the insurer had, but did not breach, a duty to defend; 2) the district court properly declined to require the insurer to reimburse plaintiff's contract indemnitee's expenses; but 3) the case is remanded to resolve whether the insurer owes prejudgment interest on litigation expenses and reimbursement for the settlement expenses in the underlying suit.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Judgment holding defendant's asserted design patent for slippers known as Snoozies, invalid on summary judgment and also dismissing defendant's trade dress claims with prejudice is: 1) reversed as to the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, where the district court made multiple errors in its obviousness and functionality analysis; and 2) vacated as to the dismissal of defendant's trade dress claims, and remanded for the Court to reconsider its decision denying defendant's request to amend the pleadings.

(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) - Plaintiff, an abortion care provider, sought a license from the State of Indiana to operate a clinic. Plaintiff made two unsuccessful license applications over a two-year period before resorting to the federal courts. The district court granted Plaintiff preliminary relief based on the likelihood that it would be successful at trial. Indiana appealed seeking a stay on the relief. Appellate ordered that Indiana should treat Plaintiff as though it were provisionally licensed while the litigation proceeds.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an action challenging NCAA rules prohibiting student-athletes from being paid for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, the district court's judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the NCAA's rules are not exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, and are subject to the Rule of Reason; and 2) the district court's permanent injunction ordering the NCAA to allow members schools to pay students up to $5,000 a year in deferred compensation was erroneous.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the denial of a former professional football player's claim for workers' compensation benefits as former defensive tackle, Larry Tripplett, sought workers' compensation for cumulative injuries he suffered during his playing career. He argued that he was eligible for benefits in California, but the Fourth Appellate District disagreed, finding that he was ineligible because he was outside the state when he signed his employment contract with the Indianapolis Colts.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reinstated a claim that a golf club was negligent in failing to protect patrons from yellow jacket wasps. The plaintiff, who was attacked by a swarm of yellow jackets while taking a golf lesson, argued that the golf club owed a duty to protect patrons from the insects even if they came from an undiscovered nest on the course. On appeal, the First Appellate District agreed that a duty of care existed in this situation, requiring actions such as reasonable inspections, and it therefore reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denying plaintiff's damages claim arising out of its contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build housing units on Malmstrom Air Force Base, the Board's decision is affirmed where there was no change to the base access policy that forced additional costs.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the grant of summary judgment for the Army and dismissing the private party's claims for contract reformation and breach of contract in the case of a marina on land leased from the Army that was rendered unusable for a period of time while the Army reduced the water level of a lake to repair a dam.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(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) - Upheld a decision of the Contractors' State License Board finding that a large contracting company violated California law by failing to obtain a building permit before replacing a boiler. Affirmed the denial of the company's writ petition.