BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc
(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.
JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Automotive Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Dismissed an appeal from an inter partes review decision on grounds that the patent challenger lacked Article III standing. The challenger asserted that the patentee's claims for a motor vehicle drivetrain were invalid. On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the challenger lacked standing because it had not established an actual injury; in particular, it had no product on the market or any concrete plans for future activity that would likely cause the patentee to complain of infringement.
Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim relating to a design for a portable animal kennel. The patent owner insisted it should not be estopped by prosecution history from asserting its infringement claim against a competitor. Agreeing that estoppel did not apply, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded for further proceedings.
Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted that they did not violate the Lanham Act by producing greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer who had posted a popular YouTube video known for its catchphrase Honey Badger Don't Care. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.
GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded the Patent Board's prior ruling against plaintiff which had filed suit to challenge the defendant’s proposed patent. In vacating and remanding, the Appellate court ruled that plaintiff’s printed catalog was prior art and that the defendant’s proposed patent could have been based on information in that catalog and that the trial court had not properly considered the catalog in making its finding.
Excelled Sheepskin and Leather Coat Corp. v. Oregon Brewing Co.
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed summary judgment for an apparel company in its trademark infringement action. A company that sold leather jackets branded ROGUE contended that a commercial brewery that sold ROGUE-branded beer had infringed its trademark by using the name on t‐shirts and hats. The Second Circuit held that the apparel company was not entitled to summary judgment, because the brewery was the senior user and the evidence did not show that it was precluded by laches.
Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent claim relating to light-emitting diodes was invalid because it did not meet the enablement requirement. After a jury found that the defendants had infringed Boston University's patent, the defendants appealed on the ground that the patent was invalid because it did not adequately teach the public how to make and use the invention. Agreeing with this argument, the Federal Circuit held that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
ZUP, LLC v. Nash Manufacturing, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a patent for a water recreational board was invalid as obvious. On appeal, the patent holder argued that its invention of a recreational board that would help athletically challenged people ride on the water was not obvious. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit disagreed and affirmed the district court decision granting summary judgment to the defendant in this patent infringement action.
People v. Pierce
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed. Defendant, a chiropractor, was convicted of charges stemming from a scheme to defraud workers’ compensation insurance carriers. On appeal, Defendant claimed several errors at trial including a sentencing error. The appeals court found no abuse of discretion or prejudicial error.
US v. Seng Yong
(United States Ninth Circuit) - On an issue of first impression, addressed the standard for determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas obtained through offers of leniency for third parties. Held that a man's guilty plea was voluntary even if it was made in exchange for leniency for his son, in this prosecution involving the operation of an unlawful sports betting operation.
People v. Astorga-Lider
(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order declaring a deed of trust void, in a case where a woman pleaded guilty to grand theft for encumbering a married couple's real property with a fraudulent deed of trust.
US v. Anieze-Smith
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed a restitution order imposed against an owner of a medical supply company who was convicted of Medicare fraud. Held that she could be ordered to pay restitution even for losses resulting in part from conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations.
US v. Garcia De Nieto
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed a woman's convictions arising out of an identity theft scheme that she conducted from her home in Mexico.
US v. Boliaux
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a used-car dealer's conviction for wire fraud and bank fraud in connection with his business dealings with secured lenders. Rejected his arguments regarding the sufficiency of the evidence.
US v. Maclin
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a conviction for Medicaid theft, in a case where a billing manager embezzled payments that belonged to medical practice.
US v. Kuczora
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed the prison sentence of a defendant who pleaded guilty to wire fraud for stealing from unwary investors who sought his help in securing millions of dollars in financing.
US v. Balsiger
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed a businessperson's conviction and sentence on wire fraud and conspiracy charges stemming from a scheme to defraud manufacturers that issue coupons for consumer products. He had headed one of the nation's largest coupon processing companies.
People v. Franco
(Supreme Court of California) - Interpreted Proposition 47, a recent initiative measure that makes certain types of forgery misdemeanors if the value of the forged instrument does not exceed $950. Held that the amount written on a forged check establishes its value for this purpose. Resolved a split in the courts of appeal regarding how to determine the value of a forged check.
US v. Dickerson
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction and sentence of a law firm office manager for participating in a scheme to defraud insurance companies by submitting client claims for fraudulent chiropractic treatments. The conviction was for conspiracy and mail fraud.
US v. Valdes-Ayala
(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the fraud-related convictions of a man who falsely promised to provide professional legal assistance to individuals who were behind on their court-ordered child support payments. On appeal, the defendant made several claims of trial and sentencing error. The First Circuit affirmed his convictions and the order of restitution but remanded for resentencing using the proper version of the Guidelines Manual.
Heidary v. Superior Court (the People)
(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the superior court did not err in denying a motion to set aside an indictment. The defendant in this case alleging that medical clinics fraudulently billed insurance companies argued that the indictment failed to provide constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him and also improperly aggregated multiple acts into single counts. Rejecting his arguments, the Fourth Appellate District held that there was no basis for issuing a writ of prohibition directing the indictment to be set aside.
US v. Burfoot
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction of a Norfolk, Virginia, city council member for wire fraud, extortion under color of official right, conspiracy to commit such offenses, and two counts of perjury. The charges stemmed from the council member's solicitation of bribes from local real estate developers. He raised various substantive and procedural challenges to his conviction, but the Fourth Circuit found no merit in them and affirmed.
US v. Acevedo-Hernandez
(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the conviction and sentence of a former Puerto Rico superior court judge for receiving bribes and participating in a conspiracy to bribe an agent of an organization receiving federal funds. On appeal, the former judge cited a number of alleged trial and sentencing errors, including the upholding of a witness's invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege. However, the First Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed.
U.S. v. Sampson
(United States Second Circuit) - Reinstated federal embezzlement charges against a foreclosure referee who was also formerly a New York state senator. The defendant argued that the charges against him for allegedly embezzling escrowed funds from sales of foreclosed properties should be dismissed because the five-year statute of limitations on the offense had run. On appeal, the Second Circuit agreed with prosecutors that the district court should not have granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges as time-barred.
US v. Zukerman
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed an investment firm founder's sentence for tax evasion. After pleading guilty, the firm founder was sentenced to prison and also ordered to pay restitution and a $10 million fine. On appeal, he challenged the fine, which was far higher than the amount recommended in his plea agreement. However, the Second Circuit saw no reason to overturn his sentence in any respect.
US v. Holden
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed an investment promoter's conviction of mail and wire fraud and other offenses, but vacated and remanded for resentencing. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial judge had misinstructed the jury on the elements of the crimes and also challenged the two-level organizer sentencing enhancement. The Ninth Circuit rejected his arguments concerning the jury instructions but vacated his 87-month prison sentence and the restitution order and remanded for further proceedings.
US v. Christian Allmendinger
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the district court's finding that defendant did not face ineffective assistance of counsel where his attorney failed to raise a significant and obvious issue on appeal of his conviction for money laundering and fraudulent investment crimes. The issue would likely have resulted in a reversal of his money laundering conviction and the Fourth Circuit remanded for further proceedings.
US v. James
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming a district court denial of a motion to dismiss charges against a former US Virgin Islands senator accused of violating two criminal statutes who argued that legislative immunity barred his prosecution because although the immunity protects legislators from suit for any speech or debate in legislature the alleged wire fraud and embezzlement crimes were not legislative conduct.
US v. Cohen
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the convictions and sentence of a man for conspiracy to convert government funds, conspiracy to commit money laundering, and fourteen counts of conversion of government property in the case of a man who used bank accounts he owned or controlled in order to negotiate fraudulently obtained tax refund checks.
US v. Palin
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Husband and wife's convictions for health care fraud and conspiracy to engage in health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. sections 1347 and 1349, arising from a scheme to give insured patients repeated, unnecessary urine tests, are affirmed where: 1) materiality constitutes an element of the convicted offenses; and 2) even if the district court failed to consider materiality, the error was harmless.
Ganek v. Leibowitz
(United States Second Circuit) - In a Bivens action, brought against defendant FBI agents and federal prosecutors for alleged constitutional violations in searching plaintiff investment fund owner's Manhattan offices, the district court's denial of qualified immunity is reversed where a corrected search warrant affidavit would have supported probable cause, the corrected warrant would have issued, and plaintiff cannot plead defendants' actions caused him preventable constitutional harm.
US v. Weed
(United States First Circuit) - Affirming the district court's denial of a securities lawyer's novel argument that two former stockbrokers for whom he produced false opinion letters in connection to a pump and dump scheme fell into the safe harbor provision of securities law because the stockbrokers were affiliates of the issuing company and ineligible for safe harbor and other procedural complaints were ill-founded.
US v. Brooks
(United States Second Circuit) - Modifying orders relating to the conviction of a man for multiple counts of securities fraud, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice, and tax offenses because the convict's death resulted in the abatement of the counts of conviction, forfeiture, fine, special assessment , and restitution for offenses contested at trail, but the forfeiture of a bail bond did not abate, nor did the convictions and order of restitution imposed on tax counts.
US v. Poulson
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming the district court's findings regarding the number of victims of a multi-million dollar real estate Ponzi scheme who suffered substantial financial hardship as defined by the US Sentencing Guidelines, but vacating and remanding because the court erred in imposing the five-year occupational restriction on his three-year term of supervised release because it exceeded the statutory maximum.
US v. Ferriero
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirming judgments of conviction, forfeiture, and sentencing based on violations of the RICO Act and federal wire fraud statutes arising from payments received in exchange for recommending to officials in towns to hire the bribing firm because New Jersey's bribery statute is not unconstitutionally vague and did not present issues with federalism.
US v. Silver
(United States Second Circuit) - Vacating and remanding the conviction of Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the NY State Assembly for fraud, extortion, and money laundering, holding that the Supreme Court's decision in McDonnell rendered the district court's instructions on honest services fraud and extortion erroneous in light of McDonnell, but rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence overall.
US v. Boyland
(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the appeal of a judge convicted of 21 counts of public-corruption-related offenses, finding that subsequent decisions narrowing the interpretation of an 'official act' within the meaning of the federal bribery statute did not result in a plain error in the district court's instructions at trial.
US ex rel Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reversing the district court's dismissal of claims under the False Claims Act by realtors against their former employer who made false statements about its compliance with FDA regulations regarding certain HIV drugs resulting in the receipt of billions of dollars from the federal government and alleging retaliation against the complaining realtor, holding that the realtors adequately pled a claim for retaliation.
US v. Weaver
(United States Second Circuit) - Conviction for conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud are affirmed where over defendant's argument that disclaimers of extra-contract representations did not render salespeople's oral misrepresentations immaterial.
BPP Illinois v. Royal Bank of Scotland Grp. PLC
(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit brought by a group of hotel-related businesses, along with their investor and guarantors, alleging fraud claims against a bank and its subsidiaries, the district court's dismissal of the fraud claims is affirmed where the because plaintiffs failed to list their cause of action in a schedule of assets in their now-concluded bankruptcy proceeding, they are barred on judicial estoppel and timeliness grounds.
Autoridad de Energia Electrica v. Vitol SA Services, LLC
(United States First Circuit) - In a suit brought under a Puerto Rico 'Law 458', which prohibits government instrumentalities and public corporations from awarding bids or contracts to persons (including juridical persons) who have been convicted of 'crimes that constitute fraud, embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds listed in section 928b of this title,' P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 3, section 928, the district court's judgment remanding the case to the Commonwealth Puerto Rico Court of First Instance is affirmed where the forum selection clauses at issue were enforceable, and that the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(2)(A) therefore could not be satisfied.
IAR Systems v. Super. Ct.
(California Court of Appeal) - In an action seeking a writ of mandate ordering the trial court to vacate its finding that a law firm should be deemed part of the 'prosecution team' prosecuting defendant/real party in interest for embezzlement, and granting defendant's motion ordering the law firm to disclose material, exculpatory evidence in its possession in accordance with Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, the relief is granted where the trial court erred in: 1) imposing a duty under Brady to disclose material, exculpatory evidence directly on the law firm, as opposed to on the prosecution; and 2) in finding the law firm to be part of the prosecution team.
Kokesh v. SEC
(United States Supreme Court) - In a case arising out of an SEC enforcement action, alleging that petitioner violated various securities laws by concealing the misappropriation of money from business-development companies, and seeking monetary civil penalties, disgorgement, and an injunction barring petitioner from future violations, the Tenth Circuit's judgment -- that 28 U.S.C. section 2462's 5-year limitations period applied to the monetary civil penalties but that section 2462 did not apply because disgorgement was neither a penalty nor a forfeiture -- is reversed, where because SEC disgorgement operates as a penalty under section 2462, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.
Reich v. Lopez
(United States Second Circuit) - In a suit brought by a consulting firm specializing in fighting government corruption against a Venezuelan energy company, alleging plaintiffs were victims of an effort to discredit them by persons connected to a Venezuelan energy company that was in litigation with one of plaintiff's clients, the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's RICO and state law claims against the principals of the Venezuelan energy company is affirmed where dismissal of the RICO claims under Rule 12(b)(6) was proper because plaintiff failed to allege that the defendants engaged in a 'pattern of racketeering activity.'
People ex rel. Harris v. Aguayo
(California Court of Appeal) - In a civil enforcement action brought by the State of California against appellants for violation of the unfair competition laws (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200 et seq., arising out of a complex real estate scam through which appellants acquired and rented real estate belonging to others, the trial court's judgment and award of damages in favor of the People is affirmed over defendants' six arguments on appeal.
US v. Vinson
(United States Fourth Circuit) - Sentence and conviction of various offenses arising from his leadership of schemes, wherein fraud was systematically utilized to keep his real estate empire afloat, are affirmed over defendant's claims that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence of the crimes alleged, that the trial court gave the jury an erroneous and prejudicial willful blindness instruction, and that his aggregate sentence of 216 months is substantively unreasonable.
SEC v. World Capital Market, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an issue of first impression involving the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to disgorge ill-gotten funds from so-called 'relief defendants', the district court's final judgment, arising in connection with the SEC's enforcement action for federal securities law violations arising out of a fraudulent investment scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the district court properly asserted jurisdiction over appellants as relief defendants to determine the legal and factual legitimacy of appellants' claim to the $5 million; and 2) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the $5 million transfer as a loan was a sham.
Somers v. Digital Realty Trust Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a whistleblower claim brought under the Dodd-Frank Act’s anti-retaliation provision, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed where, in using the term 'whistleblower,' Congress did not intend to limit protections to those who disclose information to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Rather, the anti-retaliation provision also protects those who were fired after making internal disclosures of alleged unlawful activity under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and other laws, rules, and regulations.
US v. Bray
(United States First Circuit) - Conviction of illegal insider trading, after defendant received material, nonpublic information about a local bank from a fellow country club member and then used that information to make a substantial trading profit, is affirmed over defendant's claims that the government presented insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, and that the trial court's instructions allowed the jury to convict him without finding that he possessed the necessary mental state, as required by 15 U.S.C. section 78ff(a).
People v. Black
(California Court of Appeal) - In the People's appeal pursuant to Penal Code section 1238(a)(1), challenging the trial court's order to set aside certain counts of charges against defendant for using false statements in the offer or sale of a security, Corp. Code sections 25401, 25540(b), after defendant persuaded an acquaintance to invest in a real estate development opportunity in Idaho in return for a promissory note, the terms of which were amended and extended several times but never realized, the trial court's order is affirmed where the promissory notes offered for the investment in the real estate development scheme were not securities within the meaning of the Corporate Securities Law.