Case Summaries

Admiralty

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[04/24] US v. Shi
A foreign national who forcibly seizes control of a foreign vessel in international waters may be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when such vessel is intercepted by federal authorities. Foreign national's conviction and sentence for seizing control over a ship by force, and performing an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of the ship, is affirmed over challenges regarding: 1) the district court's jurisdiction; 2) the sufficiency of the indictment; 3) the admissibility of a statement to an agent; 4) the admissibility of letters seized from defendant's bunk; and 5) the constitutionality of his sentence.

[04/22] Great Lakes Exploration Group, LLC v. Unidentified Wrecked & Abandoned Sailing Vessel
In an in rem admiralty action brought by a private underwater exploration and salvage company seeking an arrest warrant for an ancient sailing vessel that sank in Lake Michigan in the 1600's, the circuit court rules that a district court may require a salvor to reveal the precise location of a shipwreck at the pleading stage where: 1) there is a need for the precise location because, for example, the embedded status of the shipwreck under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) is in dispute; 2) the requested information is available and in the salvor's possession; and 3) the district court has taken sufficient steps to secure federal jurisdiction over the claim and, when warranted, to protect the information from public disclosure.

More...

Banking Law

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

[05/01] Arnold, Matheny & Eagan, P.A. v. First Am. Holdings, Inc.
In a case involving the interpretation of Florida's garnishment statute and the obligations it imposes on third parties, including attorneys, who are served with writs of garnishment, the Supreme Court of Florida finds that Florida law imposes on both bank and non-bank garnishees the duty to retain funds held by the garnishee, even after a check on those funds has been drawn by the garnishee and delivered to the payee.

More...

Bankruptcy Law

[05/08] Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A.
In an action against a bank involving allegations that plaintiffs' were wrongfully evicted and their property improperly foreclosed upon, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' section 1983 claims constituted a de facto appeal of a state court decision and were therefore barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) plaintiffs' collateral attack on a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction was unavailing, and thus, defendant-bank did not violate 11 U.S.C. section 362 in foreclosing on plaintiffs' property.

[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

[05/07] In Re: Barroso-Herrans
A bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement presented by the bankruptcy trustee is affirmed where the trustee's reading of certain of debtors' claimed exemptions, as limited to a $4,000 share of proceeds from each of two underlying lawsuits, was objectively reasonable.

More...

Commercial Law

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/07] Family Home & Fin. Ctr, Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp.
In mortgage broker's action raising claims against Freddie Mac for intentional interference with contract, unfair competition under California state law, and defamation, summary judgment and a related ruling for Freddie Mac are affirmed where: 1) the intentional interference claim failed as there was no admissible evidence that Freddie Mac influenced or caused another party to terminate its mortgage broker contract with plaintiff, intentionally or otherwise; 2) Freddie Mac's placement of plaintiff on its "Exclusionary List" did not constitute unfair competition; 3) for purposes of the defamation claim, plaintiff failed to show malice to defeat the Common Interest Privilege; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in denying a request to defer ruling on summary judgment.

[05/07] B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc.
In an antitrust case involving the legality of an agreement which established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply types of medical equipment to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler, Ford, and state employees and retirees, a judgment and sanctions against plaintiff whose application to the network was rejected are affirmed, and appellate sanctions imposed, where: 1) plaintiff's antitrust claims lacked any conceivable merit; 2) a challenge to a discovery order failed; and 3) sanctions imposed below were not an abuse of discretion, and further, appellate sanctions were warranted.

More...

Consumer Protection

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[04/30] Clark v. Time Warner Cable
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction permits a district court to refer a claim raising a novel and technical question of federal telecommunications policy to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for its consideration in the first instance.

[04/30] Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.
In a case applying the accrual and statute of limitations provisions of the Massachusetts U.C.C. to breach of warranty claims brought against an engine manufacturer, dismissal of plaintiff's warranty and Massachusetts Gen. Laws chapter 93A claims as time-barred, as well as summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's negligence claims, are affirmed where: 1) the breach of warranty claim, accruing on the date of delivery of goods, was filed after the expiration of the limitations period, and plaintiff's equitable estoppel arguments were unavailing; and 2) plaintiff made no compelling argument and cited no specific facts which would invalidate the exculpatory language contained in a negligence exclusion clause.

More...

Contracts

[05/08] Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
In proceedings arising after the NLRB brought a complaint alleging that, by attempting to enforce certain provisions of a collective bargaining agreement with DHL Airways, petitioner-pilots' association had committed unfair labor practices, the association's petition for review of a finding that its conduct violated the National Labor Relations Act is granted where, under the analysis of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 394 U.S. 369, the NLRB did not have jurisdiction over this Railway Labor Act dispute.

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

More...

Copyright

[05/06] U.S. v. Armstead
Convictions for felony willful copyright infringement for private financial gain are affirmed over allegations that the government failed to produce sufficient evidence that DVDs sold had an aggregate value of more than $2,500 in "retail value" as used in section 2319(b)(1).

[04/28] Litecubes, LLC v. N. Light Prods., Inc.
In a patent and copyright infringement case, denial of a motion to dismiss by the defendant-appellant for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the denial of a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is affirmed where: 1) the district court need not consider whether the alleged patent infringement occurred in the U.S. in order to determine subject matter jurisdiction; 2) the extraterritorial limits of the Copyright Act apply to the elements of the claim, and not to the question of subject matter jurisdiction; 3) the court predicts that Eighth Circuit law would find that the term "sale" should be interpreted consistently in copyright and patent law; and 4) there was sufficient evidence for the jury verdict and the denial of a JMOL.

[04/03] ConnectU, LLC v. Zuckerberg
In an appeal in a dispute about the parties' rights in and to Facebook, an order dismissing the action is reversed where the jurisdictional claim in the amended complaint, which switched the basis of the district court's subject matter jurisdiction from the existence of diversity of citizenship to federal question, warranted full consideration and established federal question jurisdiction.

More...

Corporation & Enterprise Law

[05/08] In re: Straightline Invs., Inc.
A judgment under 11 U.S.C. section 549(a) avoiding the transfer to appellant of corporate bankruptcy debtor's accounts receivable which had a face value of approximately $200,600 is affirmed over appellant's claims that: 1) the transfer of accounts receivable was not an avoidable transfer because there was no depletion or diminution of debtor's estate; 2) the transfer was an outright sale of receivables in the ordinary course of business, and the defenses of recoupment and earmarking should apply to bar recovery by the trustee; and 3) even if it was avoidable, the wrong measure of recovery was awarded.

[05/06] Pludeman v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
The court of appeals rules that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for fraud against individually-named corporate defendants pursuant to CPLR 3016(b) where it was not unequivocal, as a matter of law, that a finder of fact could not reasonably infer the requisite knowledge or participation by the individual defendants in an act of fraud.

[05/05] US v. Edwards
In a prosecution for wire fraud and related crimes, defendant's conviction is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal made after he rested his defense; 2) he was denied a fair trial and the ability to confront witnesses when the district court permitted several prosecution witnesses to remain in the courtroom and listen to testimony before they took the witness stand; 3) the court erred in denying a motion to suppress certain documents submitted to the SEC during its investigation of a sale and lease-back program; and 4) the court's jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. However, defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing where, although defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering, he only received one sentence.

More...

Government Contracts

[04/23] Phillips/May Corp. v. U.S.
In a case involving claims related to plaintiff's work under a construction contract with the government, summary judgment for the government is affirmed where: 1) a claim cannot be split between an agency board and the Court of Federal Claims under the Contract Disputes Act; and 2) claims brought by plaintiff before two separate agencies were based on "the same set of transactional facts" for purposes of res judicata.

[04/18] Morales v. Sociedad Espanola de Auxilio Mutuo y Beneficencia
Under Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), an individual can come to the emergency department for EMTALA purposes without physically arriving on the hospital's grounds as long as the individual is en route to the hospital and the emergency department has been notified of her imminent arrival.

[04/18] Int'l Tech. Co. v. Sec'y of Navy
In a case involving a claim for breach of a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for treatment of contaminated soil at a Navy facility wherein the contractor seeks to recover additional soil treatment expenses incurred by a subcontractor, judgment that contractor was not entitled to award of costs and damages for breach of contract is affirmed where the contractor: 1) did not establish any representation in the contract documents as to the clay content of contaminated soil; and 2) failed to establish that it would have been reasonable for subcontractor to rely on any such representation under the circumstances.

More...

Injury & Tort Law

[05/09] Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold and Easement etc.
In an action claiming that plaintiff has lost and is continuing to lose natural gas stored in its Elk Basin Storage Reservoir due to the operation of gas production wells owned by defendants, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the condemnation claim was properly dismissed, but on the ground that it failed to state a claim; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim; and 3) state law claims were properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A natural gas company may not condemn additional property that is not specifically described in its existing certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN), even if the natural gas company seeks to acquire such property in order to operate and maintain an existing storage facility.

[05/08] U.S. v. Harper
In an action alleging intentional and negligent misrepresentation by defendant's failure to disclose information in a referral letter, judgment against one defendant is reversed where: 1) the referral letter was not affirmatively misleading since it did not comment nor recommend on the doctor's proficiency; and 2) defendant did not have an affirmative duty to disclose negative facts. As for other defendants, their liability is affirmed, but the case is vacated and remanded in order to determine if there needs to be a re-apportionment of damages between the remaining defendants.

[05/07] Serrano v. Stefan Merli Plastering Co., Inc.
Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.510, subdivision (c), and the court's inherent authority to control its ministerial officers and other persons connected with a judicial proceeding in furtherance of justice, authorize the court to require a deposition reporter to provide a copy of a deposition transcript to a non-noticing party in a pending action for a reasonable fee which, in the absence of an agreement between the interested parties, may be set by the court upon a proper evidentiary showing.

More...

Insurance Law

[05/08] Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd.
In an action brought by Ford and its cargo insurer against defendant-ocean carrier for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage, partial summary judgment for defendant and third-party defendants is reversed where the district court erroneously interpreted the bill of lading to apply Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) instead of the Hague-Visby Rules, and additional briefing and fact-finding may be required before the liability limitation may be appropriately applied. (Amended opinion)

[05/08] In Re: Peanut Crop Ins. Litig.
In an action against the government over the indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued and governmentally backed insurance policy, summary judgment for farmers on breach of contract claims is vacated and the case remanded where: 1) the policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at a 31 cent quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; 2) the prevention doctrine was misapplied since the indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and 3) there was no detrimental reliance since government programs are subject to congressional modification, and the farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program.

[05/02] Dill v. Gen. Amer. Life Ins. Co.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2) and 50(b) are non-jurisdictional claims processing rules that provide an affirmative defense to untimely filings if raised, but which can be forfeited if not timely raised.

More...

Intellectual Property

[05/08] Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In a patent case pertaining to alleged infringement by Microsoft and Dell of two patents owned by plaintiff-Lucent, summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent is vacated and remanded where the district court's construction of the term "terminal device" was erroneous. Summary judgment of non-infringement as to another patent is affirmed as the district court's construction of the phrase "each successive iteration including the steps of" was proper.

[05/07] Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In proceedings involving imports and sales of certain Toyota hybrid vehicles, an order finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and refusing to enter an order excluding Toyota's products is affirmed on the basis of noninfringement, although the circuit court declines to resolve the construction of a "continuously variable" limitation.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

More...

Landlord Tenant

[05/06] In the Matter of IG Second Generation Partners L.P. v. New York State Div. of Hous. and Cmty. Renewal
In an appeal addressing whether the Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR) had the authority to cancel rent arrears owed by a rent-stabilized tenant as a result of DHCR's resolution of an unusually protracted fair market rent appeal, the court of appeals rules that DHCR did not have the authority under the circumstances of this case.

[05/01] P.A. Bldg. Co. v. City of New York
In a landlord-tenant dispute involving whether asbestos abatement costs incurred by the landlord were "operating expenses" under the relevant terms of a commercial lease, judgment for landlord awarding additional rent due including amount of interest accrued is reversed and remanded where: 1) the underlying asbestos abatement costs were not "operating expenses" within the meaning of "escalation provisions" in the lease agreement; and 2) the interest amount on additional rent due should have been calculated from the date which an audit resisted by the landlord was finally commenced.

[04/23] Campbell v. DiSabatino
In a landlord-tenant dispute wherein tenants claimed damages from mold found in the rental premise, summary judgment for landlord is affirmed where tenants failed to provide expert evidence as to the "causation" of the mold, and a landlord has no duty to remediate mold created by the tenants' conduct or possessions thereof.

More...

Patent

[05/08] Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.
In a patent case pertaining to alleged infringement by Microsoft and Dell of two patents owned by plaintiff-Lucent, summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent is vacated and remanded where the district court's construction of the term "terminal device" was erroneous. Summary judgment of non-infringement as to another patent is affirmed as the district court's construction of the phrase "each successive iteration including the steps of" was proper.

[05/07] Solomon Techs., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In proceedings involving imports and sales of certain Toyota hybrid vehicles, an order finding no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and refusing to enter an order excluding Toyota's products is affirmed on the basis of noninfringement, although the circuit court declines to resolve the construction of a "continuously variable" limitation.

[05/07] Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving automated financial account processing systems, summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the construction of "remote interface" only encompasses publicly-accessible computer equipment and not consumer owned personal computers; 2) thus, defendant-Federated was entitled to summary judgment; 3) defendants-TD Ameritrade and HSBC were entitled to summary judgment only with respect to systems that are accessed solely via consumer-owned personal computers; but 4) further proceedings were required as to those defendants based on certain modified claim constructions.

More...

Probate Trusts

[05/06] Estate of Herold
An order denying petitioner's safe harbor petition, which sought a declaration that his proposed "Petition for Information" would not amount to a will contest, is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in finding that a no contest clause of the will was incorporated by reference into a trust.

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[03/31] Akira Akazawa v. Link New Tech. Int'l, Inc.
In a patent dispute, summary judgment for defendant based on lack of standing is vacated where issues of Japanese intestacy law must be resolved by the district court in order to determine whether plaintiff owned the patent at issue, and therefore possessed standing to bring the present suit.

More...

Securities Law

[05/06] In re: Slatkin
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.

[05/05] Benton v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
In an action against defendant alleging a violation of the Arkansas Securities Act and common law fraud, dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state facts on which relief could be granted is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs' complaint was devoid of any allegations which might establish that defendant-Merrill Lynch materially aided the fraudulent sale of promissory notes, for purposes of a claim under Arkansas Securities Act; and 2) the allegations in the complaint did not include factual allegations which demonstrate Merrill Lynch assisted or even knew of the fraud, for purposes of a common law fraud claim.

[05/05] US v. Edwards
In a prosecution for wire fraud and related crimes, defendant's conviction is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal made after he rested his defense; 2) he was denied a fair trial and the ability to confront witnesses when the district court permitted several prosecution witnesses to remain in the courtroom and listen to testimony before they took the witness stand; 3) the court erred in denying a motion to suppress certain documents submitted to the SEC during its investigation of a sale and lease-back program; and 4) the court's jury instructions constructively amended the indictment. However, defendant's sentence is vacated and remanded for a new sentencing hearing where, although defendant was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of wire fraud and money laundering, he only received one sentence.

More...

Sports Law

[04/29] Roman v. Liberty Univ., Inc.
In a personal injury action, an order granting defendants' motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as on the ground of forum non-conveniens, is affirmed where: 1) a defendant's conduct neither satisfied the "purposeful availment" nor the "relatedness" requirement to be subjected to specific jurisdiction; and 2) another suitable forum was available for plaintiff's action, and the trial court properly balanced the private and public interests for purposes of the forum non-conveniens issue.

[04/15] Borden v. Sch. Dist. of the Township of E. Brunswick
In an action instituted by a football coach alleging that a school district's policy, prohibiting faculty participation in student-initiated prayer, was unconstitutionally overbroad, vague, and violated his First Amendment freedoms, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) the policy was not unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the plaintiff; and 2) plaintiff's silent acts violated the Establishment Clause, as his engagement in the underlying acts would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that plaintiff was endorsing religion.

[03/26] Intersport Inc. v. NCAA
In an action involving plaintiff's license from the March Madness Athletic Association to use the trademark term "March Madness" for various business purposes, declaratory judgment in favor plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the circuit court: 1) erroneously interpreted the term "videos" as including material transmitted to Sprint PCS cell phone customers on demand; 2) impermissibly rewrote the language of plaintiff's license agreement; and 3) had an insufficient factual basis to enter judgment on plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim.

More...

Trade Secrets

[03/27] TSMC N. Am. v. Semiconductor Mfg. Int'l Corp.
In an action seeking to enjoin proceedings instituted in Beijing People's High Court in China pursuant to choice of law and forum selection provisions in a purported "settlement agreement" between the parties, denial of a motion for an antisuit injunction is affirmed in light of international comity and judicial restraint considerations.

[02/29] Heritage Mktg. & Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Chrustawka
In action for breach of contract, conspiracy to defraud, defamation, tortious interference with economic advantage, and violation of the California Trade Secrets Act, summary adjudication on five causes of action based on the expiration of the statute of limitations is affirmed as Code of Civil Procedure section 351 did not toll the various limitations periods.

[02/20] CytoDyn, Inc. v. Amerimmune Pharm., Inc.
In suit claiming unjust enrichment based on the alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's patents and trademarks, award of attorney's fees is reversed where the trial court erred in awarding attorney's fees under a provision of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, as the complaint cannot be read as alleging a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets. The court also erred in concluding that attorney's fees were recoverable under the indemnification clause of a licensing agreement.

More...

Trademark

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[04/29] Aktieselksabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
In an action brought opposing a trademark application, summary judgment for applicant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court may consider all relevant issues brought by either party regardless of whether they were brought before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); 2) the district court incorrectly applied a heightened threshold for a complaint; 3) under Section 2(d) an intent-to-use applicant prevails over any opposer who began using a similar mark after the intent-to-use filing date; 4) opposer provided sufficient facts to establish constructive use of the trademark; 5) opposer's allegations of bad faith intent to use the trademark were sufficient to give notice of the claim; and 6) dismissal of opposer's allegation of common law fraudulent misrepresentation was proper.

[04/14] Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp.
In a cancellation proceeding involving parties engaged in business related to self-locking fasteners using nylon locking elements, summary judgment for appellee is affirmed where, because appellant's claim of trademark invalidity in its petition to cancel a mark's registration amounted to a collateral attack on a judgment in an earlier infringement suit, the rules of defendant preclusion were properly applied to bar appellant from asserting that claim.

More...

Workers' Comp

[05/06] Steed v. Astrue
Denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that claimant retained the capacity to perform light work and suffered only mild degenerative changes to her back; and 2) the ALJ did not err in its evaluation of medical evidence or in discounting claimant's credibility.

[04/30] Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner
In a case considering whether, for purposes of worker's compensation insurance, persons who made deliveries of newspapers for a newspaper publisher were independent contractors or employees, the court of appeals finds that the specific facts of this case and relevant case law supported a conclusion that the carriers were employees, and not independent contractors.

[04/29] Ramirez v. Murdick
In an action wherein plaintiff filed a Huffman claim seeking liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs for the late payment of worker's compensation benefits, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the Superior Court did not err in its interpretation and application of Workers' Compensation Act, 19 Del. C. sections 2357 and 2362(c); and 2) although the Superior Court erred in converting employer's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment without notice, the error was harmless.

More...