Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of patent claim invalidity involving certain claims related to a drug distribution system for tracking prescriptions of sensitive drugs, such as those with addictive properties. In affirming, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err and that its determination, on inter partes review, that the patents were invalid was obvious.
Lee v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of class action employment law claims brought by independent contractors working for the government-funded broadcast service Voice of America. The contractors alleged that they should have been appointed to positions in the civil service or retained through personal-services contracts instead of working under purchase order vendor contracts that provided less in the way of compensation and benefits. In affirming the dismissal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the trial court's finding that plaintiffs had set forth no viable theory of recovery.
Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions v. Custopharm Inc.
(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.
TF3 Ltd. v. Tre Milano LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reversed a finding of patent claim invalidity relating to patent claims for a hairstyling device. In reversing, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in holding, on inter partes review, that the patent claims were invalid on grounds of anticipation and that the Board had mistakenly construed the claims more broadly than the description in the patent specification merited. On the correct claim construction, the Federal Circuit held that the claims were not anticipated.
Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of no liability in a trade secret misappropriation case where a jury found that a competitor did not steal Raytheon's trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. Raytheon appealed but the Federal Circuit affirmed denial of the company's JMOL and new-trial motions, and also affirmed denial of the competitor's motion for attorney fees.
Martin v. US
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe in a case where the plaintiffs alleged that the U.S. government had caused a compensable taking by barring repairs to forest-fire-damaged roads which provided the only means to access their patented mining and homestead claims within the Santa Fe National Forest. In finding that their regulatory taking case was not yet ripe for review, the appeals court noted that plaintiffs had not yet applied for a permit to reconstruct the forest roads.
Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part and vacated in part a patent infringement final judgment. Polara, a manufacturer of accessible pedestrian signal systems, filed suit against its competitor Campbell and prevailed after a trial on certain infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Campbell's JMOL motion but vacated the enhanced damages award and remanded for further proceedings.
Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions, Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America, Inc.
(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.
Wilfredo Colon, et al., Appellants, v. Willie Martin, Jr., et al., Respondents.
(NY Court of Appeals) - No. 26
Poursina v. USCIS
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The district court denied Plaintiff’s national-interest waiver petition for lack of jurisdiction. Affirming, the panel held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) strips the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the denial of a national-interest waiver.
Sanchez v. Davis
(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.
Singh v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding the record did not compel the conclusion that police officers did not persecute Singh on account of his imputed political opinions, the panel concluded his asylum claim fails.
US v. Fuentes-Rodriguez
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A sentence following a guilty plea for illegal reentry was proper because assault-family violence qualifies as a crime of violence and is therefore an aggravated felony.
Pleitez-Lopez v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. The panel held that petitioner’s reliance on his lawyer’s erroneous advice that he was not required to update his fingerprints was reasonable and constituted “good cause” to grant a continuance, and remanded.
Zuniga v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Remanded. Finding that non-citizens subject to expedited removal under 8 USC Section 1228 have a statutory right to counsel in reasonable fear proceedings, the immigration judge deprived Zuniga of his right to counsel by failing to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of that right.
Flores-Abarca v. Barr
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and remanded. The Oklahoma misdemeanor of transporting a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle is not one of the firearms offenses listed in the USC making an alien statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal.
People v. Rodriguez
(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed order denying motion to vacate conviction. Defendant pled guilty to unlawful intercourse with a person under age 16 for which he received probation. He was then taken into custody by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and ordered removed. He admitted to violating his probation because he was in the custody of the INS and deported. He also married the victim and had two children by her. Defendant filed a petition to vacate his conviction under Penal Code 1473.7 which was denied by the trial court. The appeals court held that the trials court’s order must be reversed because the motion was denied based on untimeliness and without the presence of the defendant or his counsel.
Flores v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Dismissed. The government appealed the district court’s granting in part of a motion to enforce a 1997 settlement agreement guaranteeing minors in the custody of immigration agencies be held in facilities that are safe and sanitary. The panel dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the district court did not modify the agreement.
Romo v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Finding that solicitation of a crime as serious as possession of at least four pounds of marijuana was as turpitudinous as the crime itself, the panel denied Romo’s petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ determination that she was inadmissible.
Almaqurami v. Pompeo
(United States DC Circuit) - Reversed. Plaintiffs offered the chance to apply for a select number of diversity visas that were never granted and whose statutory deadline had passed did not have a moot claim because the district court retained the authority to potentially award relief.
Janjua v. Neufeld
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed. The panel held that the issue of whether Plaintiff was inadmissible on terrorism-related grounds was not actually litigated in his asylum proceedings and, therefore, issue preclusion did not apply to his adjustment of status proceedings.
US v. Pedroza-Rocha
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The dismissal of an indictment for illegal entry following removal was reversed because while the appeal was pending the court issued an opinion in an analogous case foreclosing the defendant's arguments.
US v. Botello-Zepeda
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A sentence imposed on a man for illegal reentry to the US was affirmed. An upward variance at sentencing that considered the facts of an unrelated case and his need for treatment for alcoholism was not in error.
Flores-Vega v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. Defendant's conviction for “strangulation” was categorically a crime of violence making him removable and ineligible for asylum; substantial evidence supported the Board of Immigration’s denial of withholding of removal and relief.
US v. Alabi
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. A trio of co-conspirators who participated in a scheme to marry Nigerian nationals to obtain immigration status were properly convicted and sentenced for their plot.
People v. DeJesus
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to vacate his plea of no contest to assault with a firearm. Defendant claimed that his counsel did not inform him of the consequences of such a plea on his immigration status. The appeals court found no prejudicial error and that Defendant had failed to show evidence that his plea was legally invalid.
US v. Corrales-Vazquez
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed a misdemeanor conviction for eluding examination or inspection by immigration officers in violation of 18 USC section 1325. Held that an alien that crosses into this country at a non-designated place of entry is not guilty of eluding examination, because such conduct must occur at a designated examination place.
Diaz-Quirazco v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition denied. Plaintiff petitioned for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision for removal based on a judgment for Contempt of Court for violating a restraining order.
Luna-Garcia v. Barr
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Petition for review denied. An in absentia order of removal could not be overturned because it was not capricious, without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational it was arbitrary.
N.Y.C.C. v. Barr
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Petition for review denied. Nothing in N.Y.C.C.’s record required the immigration judge or Board of Immigration Appeals to conclude past persecution or reasonable fear of future persecution, where Petitioner could not show that she was unable to leave her abusive relationship, nor prove that she was the mother of a cartel member’s child.
Flores v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of a motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective counsel granted in part and denied in part. BIA applied a “clear probability” standard, rather than a “more likely than not” standard, when considering protection under the Convention Against Torture Act. Remanded to district court.
Pierre-Paul v. Barr
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Denied in part, dismissed in part. A Haitian national's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals denial of asylum and cancellation of removal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. His arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and violated due process were denied.
Marinelarena v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. An ambiguous record regarding a state law conviction does not constitute a predicate offense that would bar eligibility for a cancellation of removal, overruling Young v. Holder, where Petitioner argued previous conviction for conspiracy to commit a felony did not reference a specific controlled substance.
Menendez-Gonzalez v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Petition for review of Board of Immigration decision denied, where Defendant could not show legal or constitutional reasons to provide court the jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening.
Vyloha v. Barr
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Consolidated petition for review. Motion to reconsider denied. Board of Immigration Appeals did not abuse its discretion in finding an immigration judge’s in absentia removal order appropriate, where defendant waited 10 years before filing the motion to reopen his proceedings and did not meet the standard for equitable tolling based on limited English proficiency, nor meet the requirements for a sua sponte request based on lack of notice and ineffective counsel.
US v. Buluc
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant, a Turkish national, was convicted for taking action to prevent his removal from the United States. While U.S. officers were escorting Defendant onto a flight to Turkey, he vigorously resisted the officers and the Airline refused to allow him to board because of his disruptive behavior.
Gurung v. Barr
(United States Second Circuit) - Granted petition. Vacated removal order. Remanded. Plaintiff challenged denial of application for asylum. The immigration Judge denied application stating that it was not credible finding that there were inconsistencies in Plaintiff’s testimony. The Appeals court held that two of the purported inconsistent statements were not inconsistent at all and the third inconsistency did not justify an adverse ruling.
Betansos v. Barr
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denied petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision to remove Plaintiff from the United States. The appeals court held that Plaintiff's conviction for indecent exposure was a crime involving moral turpitude and held that the BIA decision in Matter of Cortes Medina applied retroactively to Plaintiff making him ineligible for cancellation of removal.
US v. Cortez-Gonzalez
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed. Defendant plead guilty to one count of transporting illegal aliens. He claimed district court erred by applying sentence enhancements. Appeals court found no error.
Yan Yang v. Barr
(United States Second Circuit) - Granted. Petition for review of Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying Plaintiff application for asylum. Plaintiff demonstrated changed circumstances and BIA was required to consider entire application. Remand application to BIA for limited purpose of granting application.
People v. Chen
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed denial of motion to vacate a conviction under penal Code Section 1473.7. Defendant contended that her trial counsel failed to property advise her of adverse immigration consequences of plea agreement. Appeals court held that the evidence did not support her contention.
W. M. V. C., et al v. William Barr, U.S. Atty Gen
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Deny petition for review. Plaintiff appealed dismissal of application for asylum and withholding of removal. Petition for stay of removal was granted, but denied the award of attorney fees. Plaintiff appealed the denial of attorney fees. Appeals court ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act because the government’s actions were substantially justified.
Oscar Melendez v. Kevin McAleenan, Acting Secy, et
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Vacated and complaint dismissed. Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment against Defendant, Homeland Security, claiming that DHS improperly denied application for legal permanent resident. Appellate court held that Plaintiff failed to state a legally cognizable claim.