Mealey Publications™
TOP STORIES
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 rejected an artist’s petition for a writ of certiorari, declining to hear the artist’s argument that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly held that copyrightability is a pure question of law when it upheld a California federal judge’s dismissal of infringement claims brought against singer and rapper Lil Nas X.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court will review a Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel decision striking down a COVID-era Mississippi state law providing that mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day may be received by the registrar within five days of Election Day and still be valid, the court on March 2 granted the U.S. solicitor general’s motion to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument, while denying two separate motions by other respondents for divided argument.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. — The owners of a North Carolina Superfund site contaminated with hazardous substances following decades of weapons and chemical manufacturing operations struck an agreement with the United States in a federal court to drop their claims seeking reimbursement for cleanup costs pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 in exchange for a $3.9 million payment.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An artist’s attempt to copyright an artificial intelligence-generated piece of art appears doomed after the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 denied his petition for a writ of certiorari in which he argued that the Copyright Act does not impose a human authorship requirement.
CINCINNATI — The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated and remanded a district court’s decision to grant a motion to dismiss an insured’s amended complaint seeking coverage for underlying asbestos liabilities, determining that the insured adequately states a claim for breach of contract.
WILMINGTON, Del. — A Delaware judge granted primary insurers’ motion for partial summary judgment in their declaratory judgment lawsuit brought against Instagram LLC and Meta Platforms Inc. (collectively, Meta), ruling that the insurers have no duty to defend against several thousand lawsuits alleging that Meta’s platforms caused harm to children because none of the underlying allegations “whether express, inferable, or extrinsic—support a conclusion that Meta’s conduct was accidental.”
NEW ORLEANS — Distinguishing a sister circuit’s ruling that upheld an award of benefits under the same Employee Retirement Income Security Act severance plan following de novo review, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion agreed with the lower court that the abuse-of-discretion standard applies and substantial evidence supported denial of benefits under the plan’s “good reason” clause.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 denied review of a petition filed by a group of individuals who objected to the $600 million class action settlement in the Ohio train derailment lawsuit and appealed a lower court’s requirements pertaining to an appeal bond in that litigation. The petitioners had argued that “the notion an appeal bond must be separately appealed, and cannot be challenged by motion within the appeal to which it relates, represents a split of authority among circuits.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 denied review in the appeal brought by the states of Maryland and South Carolina, which had argued that the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrongly reversed lower courts’ orders remanding their respective injury lawsuits against the 3M Co. related to exposure to the firefighting agent known as aqueous film forming foam (AFFF).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A group of individuals who objected to the $600 million class action settlement in the Ohio train derailment lawsuit and appealed the district court’s requirements related to an appeal bond have filed a petition for review in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that “the notion an appeal bond must be separately appealed, and cannot be challenged by motion within the appeal to which it relates, represents a split of authority among circuits.” The petitioners also argue that the issue involves a “misuse” of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United States government on Feb. 25 filed a motion to participate in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court when it considers arguments from a bioequivalent pharmaceutical maker that a patent holder’s complaint failed to state a claim for induced infringement because the “skinny label” generic version of the patent carved out the patented cardiovascular use of the drug; the government’s motion was filed a day after it filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioner entity.