FEATURED SPONSORS
News
Federal Circuit dismisses 'Tafas' appeal, but plaintiff may still seek fees
Sheri Qualters
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently dismissed a case challenging controversial proposed patent rules that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently dropped, but it left the door open for the plaintiff to recover legal costs.
Marriage equality opponents ask U.S. Supreme Court to shield their identities
Amanda Bronstad
Protect Marriage Washington has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to block the public release of the names and other personal information of 138,000 people who signed a petition the goal of which was to strip gay and lesbian couples of the same domestic partnership rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples in Washington state.
SPONSOR SPOTLIGHT
Justices grapple with constitutionality of juvenile sentences
Marcia Coyle
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided on Monday over whether states violate the Constitution by imposing a sentence of life without parole on juveniles who commit nonhomicide offenses.
Appellate Courts
American Arms International v. Herbert
4th Cir.
April 20, 2009
The 4th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which upheld a decision of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke one appellant's firearms dealer's license and to deny the other appellant's application for a new firearms license. The court noted that over the past three decades, the appellants' owner had been cited by the ATF multiple times for numerous violations of the regulatory requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and that the ATF's decisions concerning the appellants was prompted by a 2003 ATF inspection of the owner's operations in which thousands of record-keeping and other violations were discovered. The court stated that its de novo review of this appeal revealed no error in the district court's grant of summary judgment to the ATF, and the court therefore affirmed.
Attorney for appellants: Richard Gardiner, Fairfax, Va.
Attorney for appellee: Ariana Wright Arnold, U.S. Attorney's Office, Baltimore.
A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC
4th Cir.
April 16, 2009
The 4th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a copyright infringement action based on the defendant's use of essays and other papers written by plaintiffs for submission to their high school teachers through an online plagiarism detection service operated by the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed that one of the plaintiffs gained unauthorized access to the defendant's online service in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Virginia Computer Crimes Act. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on the plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim based on the doctrine of fair use. On the counterclaims, the district court granted summary judgment against the defendant based on the court's conclusion that the defendant failed to produce evidence that it suffered any actual or economic damages. On appeal, the 4th Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the plaintiffs' copyright infringement claim, but reversed the summary judgment order as to the defendant's counterclaims and remanded for further consideration.
Attorney for appellants-cross-appellees: Robert Arthur Vanderhye, McLean, Va.
Attorney for appellee-cross-appellant: James Rittinger, Satterlee, Stephens, Burke and Burke, New York.
Zheng v. Holder
4th Cir.
April 16, 2009
The 4th Circuit denied a petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals in a case in which a Chinese citizen appealed a final order from the BIA dismissing her motion to file a successive application for asylum almost eight years after she filed her initial asylum application. On appeal, she argued that contrary to the BIA's decision, her changed personal circumstances allowed her to file such an untimely successive asylum application without filing a motion to reopen. In the alternative, she argued that any requirement that an asylum applicant file a motion to reopen unlawfully conflicted with the United States' obligations under the Convention Against Torture and the U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which prohibit returning an alien to persecution and torture. Finding no merit in these contentions, the 4th Circuit "join[ed] the eight other circuits that have considered this issue and affirm[ed] the BIA."
Attorney for petitioner: Joshua Bardavid, Law Office of Joshua Bardavid, New York.
Attorney for respondent: Zoe Jaye Heller, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission
Fed. Cir.
April 20, 2009
The Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission finding that compact discs imported by the appellants infringed claims of six patents asserted by the intervenor, U.S. Philips Corporation and rejecting the appellants' misuse defense. The court affirmed the Commission's determination that the appellants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that Philips' patents were unenforceable due to patent misuse on the grounds of unlawful tying. However, the court concluded that the Commission erred in its analysis of the appellants' claim that Philips allegedly agreed with Sony not to license Sony's allegedly nonessential patent as competing technology in the Orange Book.
Attorney for appellants: Eric Wesenberg, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Menlo Park, Calif.
Attorney for appellee: Clara Kuehn, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for intervenor: Jonathan Cedarbaum, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Washington, D.C.
Synthes v. Reis
Fed. Cir.
April 17, 2009
The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissing without prejudice the appellant's patent infringement suit against the appellee. The appellant, a global medical-device company with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania, argued that representatives of the appellee, a Brazilian corporation that designs, manufactures, and markets medical devices, infringed the appellant's patent relating to a bone plating system when they displayed samples of five locking bone plates at a California trade show. The court held that the district court erred in holding that it lacked specific personal jurisdiction over the appellee under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2).
Attorney for plaintiff-appellant: Jeffrey Olson, Sidley Austin, Los Angeles.
Attorney for defendant-appellee: Matthew Lappis, Covington & Burling, San Diego.
Bassing v. United States
Fed. Cir.
April 16, 2009
The Federal Circuit affirmed a decision of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims upholding the Internal Revenue Service's decision not to permit the appellant to treat the release of his deficit restoration obligation to his former partners as income from the cancellation of a debt rather than from a deemed sale. The court agreed with the tax court that the release of a partner's obligation to restore a capital account deficit is a "partnership item" under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act.
Attorney for plaintiff-appellant: Patrick Dooher, Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for defendant-appellee: Carol Barthel, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Mayer Brown LLP v. Internal Revenue Service
DC Cir.
April 17, 2009
The D.C. Circuit affirmed a summary judgment of the district court that disclosure of certain Internal Revenue Service settlement information could risk circumvention under the law, a category exempted from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The information at issue involved the IRS's settlement strategies and objectives, assessments of litigating hazards, and acceptable ranges of percentages for settlement. The court agreed with the district court's determination that the information at issue was exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption 7(E).
Attorney for appellant: Thomas Durham, Mayer Brown, Chicago.
Attorney for appellee: Jonathan Cohen, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
United States v. Thompson
DC Cir.
April 17, 2009
The D.C. Circuit remanded to the district court this third-party appeal of a discovery order in a criminal case compelling the government to produce "all materials disclosed" by the third party pursuant to its cooperation with federal investigators during a criminal investigation of the third party and others. The government ultimately deferred prosecution of the third party and, thereafter, several of the third party's former employees, including the appellee, were indicted. The district court granted the appellee's motion to compel production by the government of third-party documents that would be material to the preparation of his defense, but the court stayed the district court's order of production. In this action, the third party sought to enforce the government's agreement not to disclose the third party's documents "to the extent possible" in view of the third party's claims of privilege. The court found that the district court did not independently assess which documents were material to the appellee's defense. The court therefore the case for the district court to make that assessment and to protect against the public disclosure of material documents in a manner consistent with the appellee's right to a fair trial.
Attorney for appellants: Andrew Tulumello, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for appellee United States: Sangita Rao, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for appellee Scott Thompson: Philip Inglima, Crowell & Moring, Washington, D.C.
Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Department of the Interior
DC Cir.
April 17, 2009
The D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded the U.S. Department of the Interior's five-year program to expand leasing areas within the Outer Continental Shelf for oil and gas development between 2007 and 2012. Petitioners challenging the program alleged that it violated the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act. While holding that most of the petitioners' challenges were not yet ripe for review, the court concluded that three of the petitioners' OCSLA challenges were justiciable. The court found the petitioners' OCSLA-based climate change and baseline data claims to lack merit, but found meritorious the petitioners' argument that the program's environmental sensitivity rankings were irrational.
Attorney for petitioner Center for Biological Diversity: William Snape III, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for petitioners Native Village of Point Hope, et al.: Peter Van Tuyn, Anchorage, Alaska.
Attorney for respondent: Sambhav Sankar, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for intervenor American Petroleum Institute: Steven Rosenbaum, Covington & Burling, Washington, D.C.
In re Cinquegrani
D.C. Ct. App.
April 15, 2009
The D.C. Court of Appeals ordered respondent Peter J. Cinquegrani disbarred by consent effective forthwith. The court further ordered that the D.C. Bar Counsel's petition for discipline based upon respondent's conviction and guilty plea in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York be dismissed as moot.
In re Stone
D.C. Ct. App.
April 15, 2009
The D.C. Court of Appeals ordered respondent Robert R. Stone Jr. disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. The court's order was based, inter alia, on consideration of the 2008 order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board disbarring the respondent from the practice of law in that jurisdiction.
K.R. v. C.N.
D.C. Ct. App.
April 15, 2009
The D.C. Court of Appeals remanded to the D.C. Superior Court a matter in which the trial court had awarded custody of a minor child to his maternal aunt. The child's father challenged this decision, arguing that the trial court: (a) did not have jurisdiction to hear a motion for custody brought by a non-parent; (b) failed to apply the presumption in favor of parental custody; and (c) made no finding that the father was unfit to parent his son. The appeals court remanded for the trial court to determine whether jurisdiction is proper under D.C. Code §16-831.02, the Safe and Stable Homes for Children and Youth Amendment Act, and, if so, to make a custody determination consistent with the standards set forth in §16-831.01-.13 of the act.
Attorney for appellant: Cynthia Nordone, Washington, D.C.
Attorney for appellee: Sonia Murphy, Howrey, Washington, D.C.
Trial Courts
Civil Actions
The following cases were recently filed in the Washington-area district courts. This information is provided by the district courts' official online bulletins.
Decision Tools
Use these tools to search all U.S. Circuit decisions from the past year
