(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a copyright claimant may not commence an infringement suit until the Copyright Office registers the copyright. The plaintiff, a news organization that sued a news website for infringement, argued that the relevant date should be when the Copyright Office receives a completed application for registration, even if the Register of Copyrights has not yet acted on that application. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a newspaper's anti-SLAPP motion should have been granted to block a libel suit. The plaintiffs failed to make a prima-facie showing that statements regarding them in a series of articles about campaign contributions were false. Reversed in relevant part.

(California Court of Appeal) - In the third chapter of Silicon Valley litigation spanning more than 14 years involving a microchip company and its successor, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, the judgment entered on plaintiff's cross-complaint against defendant is reversed where the court erred in submitting defendant's statute of limitations defense to the jury, as the cross-complaint was timely filed.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case dealing with the issue of whether California's franchise tax applies to an out-of-state corporation whose sole connection with California is a 0.2 percent ownership interest in a manager-managed California limited liability company (LLC) investment fund, the trial court's judgment is affirmed where passively holding a 0.2 percent ownership interest, with no right of control over the business affairs of the LLC, does not constitute 'doing business' in California within the meaning of Rev. & Tax. Code section 23101.

(California Court of Appeal) - Issuing a peremptory writ of mandate and vacating the superior court's refusal to apply the Braddock rule, requiring that the court assess demand futility as to the board in place when an amended complaint is filed in a corporate action, because the rule is consistent with relevant aspects of California law.

(California Court of Appeal) - Granting a petition for writ of mandate and directing the superior court to modify an order sustaining real parties' demurrer to a plaintiff's cause of action and entering a new order overruling a portion of the demurrer because the lower court improperly analyzed the claim of conversion.

(California Court of Appeal) - Construing the appeal of a trial court order requiring a party whose ownership interests were contested to be a petition for writ of mandate and holding that partition statutes don't allow a court to order the manner of a property's partition before determining the ownership interests of the property at stake, reversing the court's order.

(California Court of Appeal) - Petition for writ of mandate denied in a case where The People of California filed suit to enjoin the plaintiff from noncompliance with the Unfair Competition law. Plaintiff sought the writ of mandate after its motion to remove the action from Riverside County was denied by the trial court.

(United States First Circuit) - In a public utilities class action, contending that defendant power company (PREPA)'s subsidized municipalities' private use of power in violation of Puerto Rico law, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where plaintiffs' lack of a valid protected interest in the electricity consumed by the municipalities or the funds paid to PREPA deprive them of standing to bring takings or due process claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for failing to comply with the the Public Records Act (PRA), Government Code sections 6250-6276.48, the petition is granted where Public Utilities Code section 1759 bars the superior court from exercising jurisdiction over such a lawsuit.

(United States First Circuit) - In an antitrust action, alleging that defendant's petitioning of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board, government officials and tribunals, and commonwealth and federal courts to prevent plaintiff's application to provide internet protocol television service violated the Sherman Act, the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant is affirmed where the facts of the case don't subject defendant to the sham exception of the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protecting the right to petition the government.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying a petition for review by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation seeking to vacate two orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizing a company to construct a natural gas pipeline in New York and determining that the Department waived its authority to provide a water quality certification for the pipeline project under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.

(United States First Circuit) - Vacated an order denying a request by Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) bondholders for relief from an automatic stay. The bondholders argued that a statute enacted by Congress to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis did not preclude them from obtaining relief so that they could petition another court to place PREPA into receivership. Agreeing, the First Circuit held that the district court erred in concluding otherwise.

(Supreme Court of California) - Reversed. A dental practice contended that the City of Oroville was liable under an inverse condemnation claim because of damage suffered when raw sewage began overflowing from toilets, sinks, and building drains. The lower court found that the city was liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the dentist could not prove that the damage was substantially caused by the design, construction or maintenance of the sewer system and that the damage could have been prevented if dentists had installed a legally required backwater valve.

(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) - Reversing the dismissal of a claim relating to the US imposition of antidumping duties on ThyssenKrupp because relief was available and as a result vacating a Court of International Trade ruling in a case relating to the import of steel products.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the dismissal of an in rem suit filed against a ship for cargo damage sustained in transit because liability for the damage was covered by the carrier's bill of lading, which included a forum selection clause requiring suit be brought in South Korea because although South Korean courts would not allow an in rem suit, the plaintiff could have brought an in personam suit and chose not to do so for strategic reasons and the foreign forum selection clause did not violate the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed dismissal of a breach-of-contract suit against a Mexican-government-owned salt production company (ESSA) on sovereign immunity grounds. The plaintiff corporation alleged that ESSA breached a long-term, multimillion-dollar contract to sell the briny residue of its salt production process. Agreeing with the district court, the Ninth Circuit held that ESSA was immune from suit in the United States because it is a foreign state for purposes of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and neither the commercial-activity exception nor other exceptions applied here.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the constitutionality of a recently enacted California statute that effectively bans the importation and sale of ivory and rhinoceros horn. Affirmed judgment on the pleadings against the Ivory Education Institute's lawsuit, which contended that the statute is unconstitutionally vague on its face.

(US Federal Circuit) - 2019-2031

(United States Third Circuit) - In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

(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.

(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 First Circuit) - In Shell's suit against a former franchisee under the Petroleum Practices Marketing Act, district court's grant of Shell's motion for permanent injunction is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's grant of a permanent injunction ordering an defendant to cease any use of Shell trademarks, trade dress, or color patterns, and to comply with the post-termination provisions of its franchise agreements with Shell are affirmed; 2) the portion of the injunction ordering and compelling defendant to allow Shell to continue in possession of the service station until the expiration of the lease in 2014 is vacated as Shell made no showing of irreparable harm that might justify an order giving it possession of the property for the full term of the lease; and 3) Shell's motion for summary judgment on defendant's antitrust counterclaims was properly granted.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a copyright infringement and trade secret case arising out of a contract for plaintiff to produce a USB flash drive shaped like a 'PlumbBob' a gem-shaped icon from defendant's computer game, The Sims, the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant is: 1) affirmed in part as to the trade secrets claim, although on different grounds. where plaintiff's contribution to the PlumbBob USB drive, a design for the flash drive’s removal from the PlumbBob object, did not derive independent economic value from not being generally known to the public; and 2) reversed in part as to the copyright infringement claim where the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the flash drive was not sufficiently original when compared to the Plumb Bob icon to qualify for copyright protection as a derivative work.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury case, alleging that plaintiff suffered severe mental and physical disabilities from in utero exposure to unleaded gasoline vapor caused by a defective fuel hose, the trial court’s exclusion of plaintiff’s expert witnesses from testifying at trial is affirmed where the experts did not rely on generally accepted principles and methodologies to reach their conclusions.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - In an injury and tort action, brought against defendant city after twelve-year old plaintiff was seriously injured in a collision involving a speeding driver on a Brooklyn roadway, the trial court's entry of judgment for plaintiff is affirmed. The Court held that: 1) plaintiff did not have to prove the existence of a special duty because the city's acts or omissions regarding the road were made in a proprietary capacity; 2) the evidence was legally sufficient to uphold the jury's finding that the city's negligence was a proximate cause of the accident; and 3) the doctrine of qualified immunity did not apply.

(Court of Appeals of New York) - Conviction for first-degree robbery is reversed and a new trial ordered where: 1) skin color is a cognizable classification upon which a challenge to a prosecutor's peremptory strikes can be made under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986); and 2) defendant made a prima facie showing of discrimination and the prosecutor failed to give a non-discriminatory reason for the juror exclusion at issue.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The bankruptcy court's rejection of a Texas Port Authority's claims of sovereign immunity and fraud in their gambit to invalidate a bankruptcy sale that extinguished an easement they held was affirmed because there was no Eleventh Amendment violation or basis to claim fraud.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Partially affirmed, remanded. A Texas ban on public corporations obtaining package store permits did not violate Equal Protection rights, but the district court erred in finding a discriminatory nature and burden imposed by the public corporation ban.

(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.

(Supreme Court of California) - A prosecutor in a criminal case has a duty to disclose to the defense information that they personally know and information that they can learn about that is favorable to the accused. This obligation to disclose even includes restricted information about law enforcement officers. A law enforcement agency may disclose to the prosecution identifying information about an office and relevant exonerating or impeaching material in a confidential personnel file.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court properly dismissed a suit brought by a man whose state court award in a Takings Clause suit against state officials was unsatisfying to him. The State was entitled to sovereign immunity.

(United States First Circuit) - In a civil forfeiture case arising in the aftermath of a 1993 criminal prosecution in which claimant entered a guilty plea to a single count charging money laundering violations, seeking compensation for the government's alleged seizure of claimant's ownership interest in a professional basketball team franchise, the district court's judgment in favor of the government is affirmed where: 1) nothing in the court records suggests that the government seized the franchise when it obtained the restraining order to preserve the franchise as a potentially forfeitable asset; and 2) though that order effectively prevented the claimant from participating in the affairs of the franchise, it did not divest him of his proprietary interest.

(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 grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a case involving a person struck by a horse during an endurance horse riding event on account of the doctrine of primary assumption of risk, and because Swigart failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to recklessness and the horse's propensity for danger.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirming the denial of preliminary injunctive relief in an action brought by a high school coach who alleged First Amendment violations when he was suspended for kneeling and praying in the middle of a football field immediately after football games because while coaching he was a public employee, not a private citizen.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in the case of a student football player who took some hard hits and ended up diagnosed with traumatic brain injury because the coach was entitled to qualified immunity and there wasn't enough evidence to warrant a jury trail against the town.

(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.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that two riders seriously injured while horseback riding in Wisconsin could not pursue negligence claims against trail and stable operators, because their causes of action were barred by Wisconsin's equine-immunity statute, which blocks recovery for most injuries that result from an inherent risk of equine activities. Affirmed summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings against the riders, respectively.

(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) - Held that a man who was shot in the parking lot after a professional football game could not proceed with his personal injury claims. His lawsuit against the football team was barred by the statute of limitations. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In a breach of contract action against the Government, the Court of Federal Claims grant of summary judgment in favor of the Government is affirmed where the contracts whereby plaintiff provides closing services for homes owned by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) unambiguously preclude plaintiff from charging additional closing fees.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(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 First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an Indian tribe's complaint against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction. The tribe argued, at base, that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise to give the tribe three parcels of land as mitigation for the expected negative impact on historic tribal land of an I-95 bridge replacement project. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the tribe's claims were barred by federal sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.