This late-summer edition of Commercial Roundup features a notable ruling on personal jurisdiction, a pair of False Claims Act decisions, a couple of opinions tossing class certification orders, a 2-1 split in a securities fraud case (the dissent has the better end of it), a rare victory for plaintiffs in an action for unlawful maintenance of a monopoly, a broadening of RICO to cover loss of wages as injury to “business”, an en banc extension of Title VII to discriminatory time off rules, approval of a way to defeat removal post-removal, and some patent and insurance matters. Enjoy!
- Way to go, Geng!
- In-state schemer’s overt acts in support of scheme to defraud gave basis for personal jurisdiction over out-of-state schemer.
- Post-removal change in complaint to omit federal (antitrust) claims required remand of case to state court.
- COVID-19 virus didn’t cause closure of business by physically changing property and therefore didn’t trigger coverage of loss by insurance.
- Change in claim construction after IPR began entitled patent opponent to add reasons for rejecting patent as obvious and for claiming unpatentable subject matter.
- Filings in IPR didn’t trigger public disclosure bar to qui tam claims under False Claims Act.
- Fire insurer didn’t prove as a matter of law that building owner refused to present its CEO for questions about arson.
- New Rule 23(e)(2) bars old presumption that settling class claims at arm’s length assured deal’s fairness.
- RICO allows claims for loss of wages.
- Class cert order should have ruled on effect of class waiver in class reps’ contracts.
- Granting men better time-off rights may violate Title VII despite absence of any “ultimate employment decision” on hiring,
- Securities fraud complaint that alleged CEO and VP “knew” about “seismic problems” didn’t imply strongly enough that knowledge
- Threats by holder of 97 percent market share to punish buyers of better and cheaper product from upstart rival supported
- Cancer-treatment patents die on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
- Under Rule 9(b), qui tam claim had to describe false charge or payment in detail.
- Lack of right to sue in trademark license didn’t bar licensee from suing for infringement.