CHICAGO — The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Jan. 22 affirmed a lower federal court’s summary judgment ruling in a dispute over coverage for an additional insured for underlying lawsuits arising out of a gas explosion, holding that the primary insured’s “acts or omissions” caused the gas explosion in whole or in part and the plaintiff is an “additional insured” for the purposes of the umbrella insurance policy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel affirmed a Washington federal judge’s dismissal of a patent owner’s infringement complaint against Google LLC, determining in the Jan. 22 opinion that the asserted claims of the patent are directed at an unpatentable abstract idea without a necessary inventive concept.

ATLANTA — A trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the expert testimony of one witness and excluding another, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held, affirming a former teacher’s conviction for sexually abusing his students.

Two more federal judges have ruled that some or all claims survive dismissal in putative class actions challenging surcharges that health plan administrators require tobacco or nicotine users to pay, and a motion to compel arbitration has been granted in another similar case.

PHILADELPHIA — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Jan. 21 vacated an appellate court judgment finding that a trial court order granting a petition to compel arbitration is an appealable collateral order in a negligence suit against Uber Technologies Inc. and related parties, finding that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the issue of whether there was a valid arbitration agreement.

ATLANTA — An 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 21 affirmed a lower court’s denial of a motion for a protective order sought by a law firm in a complex discovery dispute over allegations of fraud in an underlying case involving claims brought by Peruvian citizens who say there were injured by exposure to lead from a smelting operation. The panel held that the law firm was not entitled to attorney-client privilege or work product protection for documents related to the firm’s efforts to recruit plaintiffs for the case against the smelter.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 21 affirmed a Minnesota federal judge’s refusal to grant a patent owner’s posttrial request for judgment as a matter of law of infringement and patent validity, but the panel vacated portions of the judge’s final order that improperly applied to unasserted patent claims.

CHICAGO — A federal judge in Illinois applied the wrong legal standards for genericness and fair use when issuing a preliminary injunction barring the companies behind the Little Caesars pizza chain from using the phrase “Pizza Puff” when advertising a new cupcake-like pizza product, a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held; the panel determined that the judge failed to adequately analyze whether another food entity’s “Pizza Puff” mark was protectible.