Hanna v. Dental Bd. of Cal.
(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal from denial of petition for writ of mandate that sought to overturn a decision of the Dental Board of California revoking petitioner's dental license, judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the penalty was authorized; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking petitioner's dental license following her pleading no contest to a felony count of Medi-Cal fraud.
People v. Stender
(California Court of Appeal) - In appeal challenging preliminary injunction requiring defendants lawyer and law firm to provide notice to certain clients that another lawyer who had been employed by the firm had resigned from the bar with disciplinary charges pending and was not authorized to practice law, judgment is affirmed, where: 1) rules governing attorneys' obligations upon resignation from the Bar apply to law corporations; 2) the resigned attorney expressly agreed to send notices, return property and refund unearned fees; 3) the trial court's finding that defendants aided and abetted the resigned attorney's unauthorized practice of law was amply supported; 4) the City is not trying to regulate the practice of law, but to prevent unlawful business practices; 5) declarations by clients amply support the court's determination that there was a probability the People would succeed on the merits of their claims; and 6) it is not apparent how clients' confidential information would be necessary to defend against the People's claims.
Barnes, Crosby, Fitzerald & Zeman, LLP v. Ringler
(California Court of Appeal) - In a law firm's suit to enforce a fee-splitting agreement against another law firm, arising from an underlying class action, trial court's judgment in favor of the defendant-law firm is reversed where an attorney may be equitably estopped from claiming that a fee-sharing contract is unenforceable due to noncompliance with rule 2-200 or rule 3.769, where that attorney is responsible for such noncompliance and has unfairly prevent another lawyer from complying with the rules' mandates.
In the Matter of Peter J. Galasso
(Court of Appeals of New York) - In disciplinary proceeding against an attorney for various misconduct, including allegations that he failed to properly supervise the firm's bookkeeper resulting in misappropriation of client funds and that he breached his fiduciary duty by failing to safeguard those funds, the order of the Appellate Division is modified to dismiss the charge for failing to timely comply with the Grievance Committee's lawful demands for information where the imposition of this separate charge is unsupported by the record.
Riverside County Sheriff's Dep't v. Stiglitz
(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.
Montes-Lopez v. Holder
(United States Ninth Circuit) - An El Salvadorian citizen's petition for review of or an order of removal is granted where the petitioner's right to be presented in the proceedings by retained counsel, established under 8 U.S.C. section 1362, was violated when his attorney failed to appear at a scheduled merits hearing before an Immigration Judge because his license to practice law had been temporarily suspended. Further, a petitioner so denied his right to counsel in an immigration proceeding is not required to demonstrate actual prejudice in order to obtain relief.
Kifle-Thompson v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners
(California Court of Appeal) - The denial of a petition for writ of administrative mandate to review the decision of the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking petitioner's chiropractic license, is affirmed as the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and petitioner's other claims of error are meritless.
US v. Cortes-Caban
(United States First Circuit) - Convictions of several police officers on charges of conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate persons in the free exercise or enjoyment of their constitutional rights and for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, are affirmed, as the facts in this case amply support the determination that a rational trier of fact could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants, acting under color of state law, conspired to violate various residents' rights and the evidence supporting the convictions for conspiracy to possess controlled substances with intent to distribute is substantially the same and is sufficient to permit the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the facts in the case.
SportFuel, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. Gatorade's use of the slogan "Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company" was fair use protected by the Lantham Act in a suit alleging trademark violations filed by SportsFuel.
The Estate of Stanley Kauffmann v. Rochester Institute of Technology
(United States Second Circuit) - Reversed and remanded. The court concluded the 44 articles at issue were not works made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1976. District Court’s summary judgement in favor of RIT and denying the motion for partial summary judgement by the Estate reversed. Remanded for further proceedings.
Iancu v. Brunetti
(United States Supreme Court) - Struck down a statutory provision that prohibits the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks. An entrepreneur who founded a new clothing line filed a First Amendment challenge when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to register his desired trademark FUCT. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with him and invalidated a provision of the Lanham Act. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which five other justices joined.
Bodum USA, Inc. v. A Top New Casting Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that the manufacturer of a coffeemaker infringed the unregistered trade dress of a competitor's widely lauded product by mimicking the overall appearance. Affirmed a jury verdict.
Uncommon, LLC v. Spigen, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of cellphone cases did not hold a valid trademark in the term CAPSULE. Affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the defendant in this trademark infringement lawsuit.
Return Mail, Inc. v. Postal Service
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the U.S. Postal Service was barred here from challenging a private company's patent for a method for processing mail. Because federal agencies do not fall within the statutory definition of a person, they are ineligible to petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the 6-3 Court.
Gold Value International Textile Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a clothing manufacturer could not proceed with a copyright infringement lawsuit against a competitor that allegedly copied a fabric design because the copyright registration was invalid due to knowingly inaccurate paperwork. Affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
Barrington Music Products, Inc. v. Music and Arts Center
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Addressed a damages issue in a case where a jury found that a musical instrument retailer infringed another retailer's trademark. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion amend the judgment.
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that a bankrupt company's rejection of a trademark licensing agreement did not deprive its licensee of the rights to use the trademark. The U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, which enables a debtor to reject any executory contract, meaning a contract that neither party has finished performing. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the 8-1 Court.
Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a tech company's copyright infringement claims against a competitor. Held that claim preclusion did not bar the company from asserting copyright infringement claims that had accrued after its earlier patent infringement suit against the competitor.
Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. Label Lane International, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Revived a textile company's copyright infringement claims accusing certain competitors of illegally copying its floral lace designs. Reversed dismissals.
Manhattan Review, LLC v. Yun
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the defendants were entitled to an award of attorney fees in a Copyright and Lanham Act lawsuit after they prevailed by asserting a collateral estoppel defense. Affirmed the award of fees.
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com
(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.
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a prevailing party only the six categories of costs specified in the general costs statute. A software manufacturer that obtained an infringement judgment against another company argued that the Act's reference to "full costs" meant that a court could award it costs beyond the six categories. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected this argument for additional costs in an opinion delivered by Justice Kavanaugh.
Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
(United States Supreme Court) - Held that an inventor's sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention. The dispute here involved two pharmaceutical companies that disagreed about whether a certain drug was under patent; one of the companies wanted to market a generic version of it. Justice Thomas delivered the unanimous opinion.
Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by a financial services company, holding that the use of its trademarks by a publishing company constituted nominative fair use.
Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Houston Independent School District
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that an education services company could not proceed with its Lanham Act lawsuit against a school district for using its marks in the course of operating a summer reading program. Affirmed summary judgment for the school district, finding that the allegedly infringing marks created no likelihood of confusion as a matter of law.
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.
(United States Second Circuit) - Affirmed a finding of copyright infringement, in a lawsuit that involved copyrighted music recordings resold through an internet platform. The suit was brought by several record companies.
Seventh Avenue, Inc. v. Shaf International, Inc.
(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed that a corporation was in contempt of a consent judgment because its outside counsel failed to respond to a motion alleging a violation of the judgment and to appear at a hearing on the motion, in a trademark infringement case.
Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - In an amended opinion, held that greeting-card companies were not entitled to summary judgment against a trademark infringement suit. The companies insisted they did not violate the Lanham Act by selling greeting cards that contained phrases similar to one trademarked by a comedy writer. However, the Ninth Circuit found genuine issues of material fact, and thus reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the comedy writer's claims.
Hyatt v. Office of Management and Budget
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an individual could obtain judicial review of the federal government's denial of his petition under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which authorizes individuals to petition for a determination of whether they must provide information requested by a government agency. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in the district court, in a case involving information collected by the Patent and Trademark Office.
Wilson v. Dynatone Publishing Co.
(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a copyright ownership claim was timely filed. The statute of limitations was not triggered by the defendants' act of registering their competing claim of ownership in the Copyright Office. Denied a petition for rehearing, in a dispute over ownership of renewal term copyrights in certain musical compositions and sound records.
Brand Services, LLC v. Irex Corp.
(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived an industrial scaffolding company's claim that a former employee stole trade secrets and confidential information when he went to work for a competitor. Reversed the entry of summary judgment for the competitor on the company's Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act claim and common law conversion claim, in relevant part.
Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Granted a new trial in a copyright case involving a claim that Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its hit Stairway to Heaven from a song written by a musician named Randy Wolfe. Held that several jury instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, including the instructions on originality, and thus vacated the jury's verdict of no infringement.
Plixer International, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GMBH
(United States First Circuit) - Held that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over a German company in a trademark infringement action did not violate due process. The German company, which operated an English-language website, argued that it lacked the requisite minimum contacts with the United States. Disagreeing, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the exercise of personal jurisdiction was constitutional.
Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - A company appealed from the determination in an inter partes review that certain claims of its patent directed to dental implants were unpatentable. Affirming, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in its anticipation finding.
ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
(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.
In re: Detroit Athletic Co.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the refusal to register the trademark DETROIT ATHLETIC CO. for sports apparel retail services because it was likely to be confused with DETROIT ATHLETIC CLUB for clothing goods. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ruling.
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that a pharmaceutical company's patent claims in a multiple sclerosis drug were invalid for obviousness. Several competitors seeking to market a generic version of the same drug raised the issue of obviousness when the company sued them for infringement. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the patent claims in question were invalid.
University of California v. Broad Institute, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed a judgment of no interference-in-fact in a patent case involving the CRISPR-Cas9 system for the targeted cutting of DNA molecules. The Federal Circuit found no error in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's conclusion of no interference-in-fact, in this case pitting the Broad Institute, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and others against the University of California, the University of Vienna, and others.
IXI IP, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that certain patent claims relating to a wireless networking device were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review proceeding.
Orexo AB v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC
(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.
Worlds Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions invalidating three patents relating to videogame software. The patentee contended that the petitions for inter partes review were time-barred because an alleged real party in interest had been served with a complaint alleging infringement over one year prior to the IPRs' filing dates. Finding possible merit in this argument, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Reinstated a patent infringement claim upon finding that the district court's grant of summary judgment resulted from an erroneous claim construction. The patentee accused several telecommunications companies of infringing its patent for an application-aware resource allocator. On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the patentee that the district court construed the patent incorrectly. The panel vacated in relevant part and remanded.
Tanksley v. Daniels
(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a TV producer's complaint alleging that the popular Fox Television series Empire infringed his copyright in a television pilot he had created a decade earlier. Moving to dismiss, the defendants contended that there was no substantial similarity between the two television shows. Agreeing, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
Cobbler Nevada, LLC v. Gonzales
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of a copyright infringement action brought against an individual who allegedly downloaded and distributed (i.e., pirated) a movie through peer-to-peer BitTorrent networks. The individual argued that he was not liable for infringement even if the infringing Internet Protocol (IP) address was his, because multiple individuals could connect via his IP address. Agreeing with him and noting that he operated an adult foster care home, the Ninth Circuit held that the complaint failed to state a claim of either direct or contributory infringement.
Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I, LLC
(United States Federal Circuit) - Vacated and remanded a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appeals Board (PTO Board) that certain claims relating to a wireless communications system are not patentable. In vacating and remanding, the Federal Circuit reasoned that the PTO Board did not consider portions of plaintiff’s reply.
Zheng CAI v. Diamond Hong, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed the decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision cancelling registration of plaintiff’s trademark for a green tea product due to the likelihood of confusion with defendant’s registered mark.
Scholz v. Goudreau
(United States First Circuit) - Denied both parties' appeals in a trademark lawsuit between two members of the rock band Boston. A member of the multi-platinum band sued the band's former guitarist for trademark infringement and breach of contract in a dispute over the wording of public statements about the guitarist's former role in the band. At trial, the jury rejected all of the plaintiff's claims and all of the defendant's counterclaims. Both sides appealed, and the First Circuit affirmed.
ABS Entertainment, Inc. v. CBS Corp.
(United States Ninth Circuit) - Reinstated claims for violation of California law copyrights possessed in certain musical performance sound recordings. The plaintiff copyright holders argued that their decision to remaster their pre-1972 analog sound recordings onto digital formats did not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law. Agreeing with the plaintiffs that their state law copyright claims were not preempted, the Ninth Circuit reversed the entry of summary judgment for the defendant radio broadcasters.
In re Maatita
(United States Federal Circuit) - Held that a patent application covering the design of an athletic shoe bottom should not have been rejected. The applicant argued that the patent claim met the enablement and definiteness requirements even though it used a single two-dimensional plan-view drawing to disclose the shoe bottom design. Agreeing that a designer of ordinary skill in the art would be able to make comparisons for infringement purposes, the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of the patent claim.
Core Wireless Licensing v. Apple, Inc.
(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part. Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action. A jury found that the defendant infringed on both asserted claims and that neither claim was invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed some of plaintiff’s infringement claims, but stated that plaintiff’s theory of infringement of other claims was inadequate to support the judgment of infringement and therefore reversed on that claim.