- Lack of unjust enrichment from infringement of party bus trademarks supported denial of profits disgorgement under Lanham Act. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/04/1
- Delaware choice of law clause in employment contract trumped forum (Massachusetts) law. media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/1
- Diverse defendant could “snap” remove case before plaintiff served non-diverse defendant. ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/1
- Stipulation of dismissal with prejudice doesn’t preclude award of fees under Rule 54. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Tort claims for software glitch that burned up steam turbine fall to economic loss rule. ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/1
- Public-use and on-sale bars in 35 U.S.C. 102(b) didn’t invalidate polymer patent. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Color as “distinctive” in trademark law gets boost. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Older LED light fixture patent may have anticipated newer one and made it obvious. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Maker of eye treatment didn’t mean to mislead stock buyers with upbeat talk about manufacturing concerns. media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/1
- Amendment of class-action complaint didn‘t moot motion to dismiss. ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys
- Facebook users had standing to sue for tracking of their activity after signing out of Facebook. ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isys
- Hiring third parties to send emails to people in random places didn’t support personal jurisdiction in Utah. ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18
- PTAB had to give notice of new unpatentability theory before using it to reject patent claim. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Faulty construction of claims in spinal cord therapy patents led to faulty conclusions of indefiniteness. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Federal Reserve Banks count as persons that can seek CBM review of patents under America Invents Act. cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
- Securities fraud claim against Target misses. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/04/1
- Law firm that clients fired after it botched their cases didn’t deserve share of contingent fee. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/04/1
- Maker of water repellant for windshields didn’t show false advertising by competitor required correction. ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/1
Note for readers
Because my practice focuses on complex commercial disputes–especially antitrust, oil and gas, and patents–I keep daily track of important decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the highest appeals courts in Delaware, New York, and Texas.
You can follow along during the week on Twitter (@contingencyblog) or here at The Contingency each Monday with this Commercial Roundup: Appeals