Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
SEATTLE — A manufacturer that, along with its insurance company, settled a personal injury lawsuit cannot assign its rights to an alleged legal malpractice claim to its insurer, a Washington appeals panel held April 6 in answering a certified question, finding that there is a potential conflict between the insured and the insurer after the insurer defended the insured pursuant to a reservation of rights to deny coverage.
SAN FRANCISCO — Epic Games Inc. on April 6 filed a motion for reconsideration of a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals order issued the same day granting a motion by Apple Inc. to stay its mandate affirming a lower court judgment finding Apple in contempt of a court-ordered injunction enjoining Apple from certain anticompetitive practices on its App Store in an antitrust dispute with Epic.
LAS VEGAS — A federal judge in Washington did not clearly err when finding that an exotic dance bar could not show that a “bikini barista” coffee shop’s use of marks containing the phrase “Foxy Lady” were sufficiently similar to the bar’s own marks containing the phrase, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held, affirming the judge’s denial of the bar’s request for default judgment and the subsequent dismissal.
CHICAGO — A putative class case over allegations that an employer breached its fiduciary duty by offering an option in its self-funded health plan that offers “no financial or medical benefit” compared to cheaper options and failed to inform plan participants of that fact has survived dismissal, with a Chicago federal judge ruling that the plaintiffs have standing and that their claims are plausible.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In what it described as a matter of first impression, a Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed an Indiana federal judge’s findings that a fencing manufacturer could not correct a patent to add the name of an undisputed co-inventor who could not be contacted because the co-inventor was a “party concerned” for correction proceedings; the panel also agreed that the patents were invalid for omitting the co-inventor.
CINCINNATI — Applying the preemption doctrine outlined in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon to a dispute over multiemployer fund contributions that involves the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 3 affirmed all challenged decisions in favor of the funds — even though one panel member penned a concurring opinion to explain her view that Garmon preemption is on “shaky footing.”
SEATTLE — A Washington federal judge on April 3 granted a motion filed by the manufacturer of Stanley-brand tumblers to dismiss an amended putative class action lawsuit against it for violating several states’ consumer protection laws, including California’s unfair competition law (UCL), by failing to disclose the presence of lead in its products, writing that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the use of lead to insulate the tumblers would harm consumers.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Washington state officials on April 6 urged the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the petition for a writ of certiorari of physicians and other entities who alleged constitutional violations by the state of Washington in initiating disciplinary proceedings against the doctors for the publication of allegedly false views on COVID-19, arguing that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals properly applied the relevant law and that the case was a poor vehicle for review.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 6 agreed to decide what courts have jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to veterans’ benefits statutes — which are often in play in asbestos cases — after a man injured during a training exercise saw his 80% disability rating reduced to 10% based on a felony conviction.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 6 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the U.S. solicitor general to brief the government’s views on a certiorari petition in which participants’ “top hat” deferred compensation and retirement plans challenge a Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that they argue wrongly left them without relief from federal and state law.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 6 granted an internet service provider’s (ISP) petition for a writ of certiorari and then immediately vacated a ruling by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that held that the ISP was vicariously liable for copyright infringement through its internet customers’ behavior. The high court pointed to its recent opinion that reversed a similar ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals against a different ISP.