Federal Circuit: Dupont v. Synvina

A party asserting right of statutory appeal from the patent board doesn't have to establish specific threat of infringement litigation; rather, for standing, a party must establish a controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality.  A competitor's concrete plans for present and future activity that presents a risk of infringement suffice to establish standing.

Given range disclosed in prior art, presumption of obviousness insufficiently rebutted.

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1977.Opinion.9-17-2018.pdf






Tenth Circuit: Smith v. Aldridge

State habeas determination that a judge's statement claiming that the jury was zealously watched was more credible than five juror affidavits asserting the jurors slept during the trial was not an unreasonable determination of the facts.

https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/17/17-6149.pdf

Ninth Circuit: Nunies v. HIE Holdings

Under the discrimination statute, the minor nature of an actual or perceived injury is an affirmative defense, and the burden to establish this subjective belief or actual condition is on the employer.

Plaintiff employee's claim that work was impossible with the injury sufficed to establish that a major life activity was impossible with the injury.

State statute's assertion that it is the sole remedy does not foreclose a claim under federal law.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-16494.pdf


Casey Taylor v. Burlington North R.R.

Certified question & bench memo.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/17/16-35205.pdf




Seventh Circuit: Patrick Hrobowski v. USA

As petitioner was sentenced according to four predicate offenses, two of which were facially infirm, a subsequent change in the law enabling a challenge to the other two predicates that was ultimately successful as to one of them does not allow a late challenge to the two infirm predicates.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:16-3549:J:Kanne:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219599:S:0

Seventh Circuit: Raul Perez-Gonzalez v. Jacqueline Lashbrook

State habeas determination that petitioner's plea deal did not implicitly waive the state's power to seek contempt sanctions for noncompliance was not an unreasonable determination of the facts or application of facts to law.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2018/D09-17/C:18-1480:J:Brennan:aut:T:fnOp:N:2219305:S:0

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Joshua Pyles

As the arrest warrant for the owner of the car would have justified the stop if there had been a reasonable probability that she was in the car, police officer's initial statement that one passenger's gender was not clear suffices; later testimony that the officer believed all the passengers to be men is not sufficient contradiction to discount the narrative.

Sentencing court's taciturnity as to mental health factors did not rise to the level of procedural error.

Upward variance for criminal history was not an abuse of discretion.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0204p-06.pdf

Sixth Circuit: United States v. Tyrone Christian

En banc order.

http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0203p-06.pdf

Fifth Circuit: Angela Roberson-King v. State of LA Workforce Cmsn

State law claim must be brought under the law granting the specific cause of action, as opposed to the more procedurally lenient general tort recovery statute.

Discrimination claim under the federal statute does not present an issue for trial when the candidate who actually got the promotion and the plaintiff are equally qualified; the business judgment of the employer is a sufficiently non-pretextual race-neutral justification.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-30899-CV0.pdf

First Circuit: US v. Russell

Where a juror omits information on a written questionnaire, and that information presents a valid basis for challenge for cause, waiver is not presumed when counsel do not question the unfinished written reply at voir dire; the juror misconduct is structural error when it results in the vote of a single potentially biased juror.

Juror's lack of disclosure of de minimis contact with witness whose credibility was not at issue was sufficiently investigated by a single consultation with witness; the juror did not have to be recalled.

Drug quantities appropriately established by amounts of fertilizer purchases.

Potential juror's dozing off was sufficient neutral reason to avoid Batson challenge.

Preemptively testifying to prior convictions on direct waives appeal against admission of the convictions.

Potentially improper statements in prosecution's closing were isolated and minor comments in a much larger web of evidence.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-2386P-01A.pdf


First Circuit: US v. Garcia-Ortiz

As there is no realistically probable scenario in which Hobbs Act robbery could be accomplished without the use or threatened use of force, the offense is a valid predicate.

Harmless error on not revisiting sentence after revision to guidelines during pendency of appeal; original sentencing court understood its discretion to have terms run concurrently or in sequence.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/16-1405P-01A.pdf