Business
[11/23] IMF chief: Global economy still fragile
[11/23] Economic survey: Job losses to bottom out in 1Q
[11/23] Heritage Oil to sell Ugandan fields to Italy's Eni
More...

Top Headlines
[11/20] $6M verdict upheld in McDonald's strip search case
[11/20] Investors sue Fla. lawyer in fraud probe for $100M
[11/20] NYC model who married doorman sues upscale co-op
More...

Government Contracts

[11/23] Walton v. N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. Servs.
In an action alleging that the portion of a telephone charge for collect calls from inmates that was allocated as a commission to the department of corrections violated the New York Constitution, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the collection of the commission did not constitute a tax; 2) the practice was not a "taking" in the absence of government compulsion; and 3) plaintiffs failed to establish that the commission bore no reasonable relationship to legitimate penological aims.
More...

Intellectual Property

[11/19] Iovate Health Sci., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc.
In a patent case involving nutritional supplements containing a ketoacid and an amino acid to enhance muscle performance or recovery from fatigue, summary judgment holding certain of plaintiff's patent claims invalid as anticipated is affirmed as the Professional Protein advertisement constitutes an anticipatory printed publication under section 102(b) that invalidates the asserted claims of the patent as: 1) the ad discloses each and every claim limitation as a matter of law; and 2) a person of skill in the art, combining his or her knowledge of the art with the advertisement's suggestions, would have considered the advertisements to be enabled.
More...

Labor & Employment Law

[11/24] Ford v. Minteq Shapes & Serv., Inc.
In plaintiff's Title VII case against his employer claiming racial harassment, wage discrimination, and retaliation, summary judgment for employer is affirmed where: 1) there is no genuine issues of fact with respect to the existence of racial harassment; 2) plaintiff failed to satisfy the fourth element regarding disparate wage treatment because he adduced no evidence that higher paid workers were similarly situated; and 3) plaintiff failed to present evidence that he suffered an adverse employment action because he engaged in an activity protected by Title VII.
More...