By Blake Brittain

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the international limits of federal trademark law, hearing oral arguments from two industrial parts makers and the Biden administration in a case that could clarify when companies can recover for trademark violations that happen overseas.

Hetronic International, an Oklahoma-based subsidiary of Methode Electronics, makes remote-control systems for cranes and other industrial machinery. Hetronic Germany, which was later bought by Abitron Germany GmbH, distributed its products in Europe.

Hetronic sued Abitron and its affiliates in Oklahoma federal court for making and selling Hetronic-branded products with unauthorized parts. After a jury verdict for Hetronic, the court awarded it $114 million in damages, $90 million of which was for violations of federal trademark law.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, despite Abitron’s argument that it was a foreign company and the vast majority of the sales were in Europe.

The appeals court said Abitron’s actions had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce and cost it millions in foreign sales. The court also said some of the infringing Abitron products sold overseas ended up in the United States, and there was evidence that they caused confusion among U.S. customers.

Abitron attorney Lucas Walker of MoloLamken told the justices Tuesday that the company should not be liable in the United States for conduct abroad, and that holding otherwise would risk causing “international friction.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Abitron’s position.

“We’re walking down the street in Manhattan and we see all of these fraudulent or fakely branded goods,” Jackson said. “If they are made overseas and we can figure out who made them, wouldn’t that be sufficient?”

“If the uses of the trademark confuse in the domestic market, that seems as though it should be enough,” Kagan said.

Masha Hansford of the U.S. Solicitor General’s office, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, said U.S. law should apply only if the foreign acts are likely to confuse consumers in the United States, and that the 10th Circuit gave the law “sweeping extraterritorial reach.”

Some justices expressed concern about the scope of the Solicitor General’s argument, though others seemed to indicate some support for it.

“Would listing the product or the products’ appearance on the internet anywhere always constitute causing confusion?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked. “You have to assume somebody’s going to look at it at some point and might be confused. I don’t quite know the extent to which your test has any limits at all.”

Hetronic attorney Matthew Hellman of Jenner & Block said that “since 1952, this court has held and repeatedly reaffirmed” that U.S. trademark law “reaches infringement of U.S. marks that is carried out overseas.”

Hellman also fielded questions about the scope of Abitron’s argument.

“Beyond your jurisdictional point, I don’t see what the outer limits are,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.

(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington)

By Blake Brittain

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the international limits of federal trademark law, hearing oral arguments from two industrial parts makers and the Biden administration in a case that could clarify when companies can recover for trademark violations that happen overseas.

Hetronic International, an Oklahoma-based subsidiary of Methode Electronics, makes remote-control systems for cranes and other industrial machinery. Hetronic Germany, which was later bought by Abitron Germany GmbH, distributed its products in Europe.

Hetronic sued Abitron and its affiliates in Oklahoma federal court for making and selling Hetronic-branded products with unauthorized parts. After a jury verdict for Hetronic, the court awarded it $114 million in damages, $90 million of which was for violations of federal trademark law.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, despite Abitron’s argument that it was a foreign company and the vast majority of the sales were in Europe.

The appeals court said Abitron’s actions had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce and cost it millions in foreign sales. The court also said some of the infringing Abitron products sold overseas ended up in the United States, and there was evidence that they caused confusion among U.S. customers.

Abitron attorney Lucas Walker of MoloLamken told the justices Tuesday that the company should not be liable in the United States for conduct abroad, and that holding otherwise would risk causing “international friction.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Abitron’s position.

“We’re walking down the street in Manhattan and we see all of these fraudulent or fakely branded goods,” Jackson said. “If they are made overseas and we can figure out who made them, wouldn’t that be sufficient?”

“If the uses of the trademark confuse in the domestic market, that seems as though it should be enough,” Kagan said.

Masha Hansford of the U.S. Solicitor General’s office, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, said U.S. law should apply only if the foreign acts are likely to confuse consumers in the United States, and that the 10th Circuit gave the law “sweeping extraterritorial reach.”

Some justices expressed concern about the scope of the Solicitor General’s argument, though others seemed to indicate some support for it.

“Would listing the product or the products’ appearance on the internet anywhere always constitute causing confusion?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked. “You have to assume somebody’s going to look at it at some point and might be confused. I don’t quite know the extent to which your test has any limits at all.”

Hetronic attorney Matthew Hellman of Jenner & Block said that “since 1952, this court has held and repeatedly reaffirmed” that U.S. trademark law “reaches infringement of U.S. marks that is carried out overseas.”

Hellman also fielded questions about the scope of Abitron’s argument.

“Beyond your jurisdictional point, I don’t see what the outer limits are,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.

(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington)

By Blake Brittain

(Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the international limits of federal trademark law, hearing oral arguments from two industrial parts makers and the Biden administration in a case that could clarify when companies can recover for trademark violations that happen overseas.

Hetronic International, an Oklahoma-based subsidiary of Methode Electronics, makes remote-control systems for cranes and other industrial machinery. Hetronic Germany, which was later bought by Abitron Germany GmbH, distributed its products in Europe.

Hetronic sued Abitron and its affiliates in Oklahoma federal court for making and selling Hetronic-branded products with unauthorized parts. After a jury verdict for Hetronic, the court awarded it $114 million in damages, $90 million of which was for violations of federal trademark law.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict, despite Abitron’s argument that it was a foreign company and the vast majority of the sales were in Europe.

The appeals court said Abitron’s actions had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce and cost it millions in foreign sales. The court also said some of the infringing Abitron products sold overseas ended up in the United States, and there was evidence that they caused confusion among U.S. customers.

Abitron attorney Lucas Walker of MoloLamken told the justices Tuesday that the company should not be liable in the United States for conduct abroad, and that holding otherwise would risk causing “international friction.”

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned Abitron’s position.

“We’re walking down the street in Manhattan and we see all of these fraudulent or fakely branded goods,” Jackson said. “If they are made overseas and we can figure out who made them, wouldn’t that be sufficient?”

“If the uses of the trademark confuse in the domestic market, that seems as though it should be enough,” Kagan said.

Masha Hansford of the U.S. Solicitor General’s office, arguing on behalf of the Biden administration, said U.S. law should apply only if the foreign acts are likely to confuse consumers in the United States, and that the 10th Circuit gave the law “sweeping extraterritorial reach.”

Some justices expressed concern about the scope of the Solicitor General’s argument, though others seemed to indicate some support for it.

“Would listing the product or the products’ appearance on the internet anywhere always constitute causing confusion?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked. “You have to assume somebody’s going to look at it at some point and might be confused. I don’t quite know the extent to which your test has any limits at all.”

Hetronic attorney Matthew Hellman of Jenner & Block said that “since 1952, this court has held and repeatedly reaffirmed” that U.S. trademark law “reaches infringement of U.S. marks that is carried out overseas.”

Hellman also fielded questions about the scope of Abitron’s argument.

“Beyond your jurisdictional point, I don’t see what the outer limits are,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.

(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington)

By Leah Douglas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – California-based cultivated meat company GOOD Meat has received clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to bring its lab-grown chicken to market, according to agency documents released on Tuesday.

Several companies are working to bring cultivated meat to market in the United States, and must receive approval from both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture before they can sell their products.

GOOD Meat’s chicken is the second cultivated meat product to receive a “no-questions” letter from the FDA after California-based UPSIDE Foods got the regulator’s green light for its cultivated chicken breast last November. The letter means the FDA accepts the company’s conclusion that its product is safe for humans to eat.

“We have no questions at this time regarding GOOD Meat’s conclusion that foods comprised of or containing cultured chicken cell material [are] as safe as comparable foods produced by other methods,” the agency said in a March 20 letter to the company.

GOOD Meat plans to initially sell its product at restaurants owned by chef José Andrés, known for his work on global food security. The company has been selling its chicken on a small scale in Singapore since 2020.

“I am so proud to bring this new way of making meat to my country and to do it with a hero of mine, Chef José Andrés,” said Josh Tetrick, co-founder and CEO of GOOD Meat, in a statement.

Cultivated meat is derived from a small sample of animal cells which are fed nutrients and grown in steel vats before being processed into cuts of meat. Cultivated meat companies say the product provides environmental benefits because it could cut down on the 14.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions derived from livestock.

(Reporting by Leah Douglas; Editing by Emelia Sithole-Matarise)

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – Oklahoma’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that the state’s constitution protects a right to an abortion to preserve the mother’s life, and that a doctor does not need to wait until there is an immediate medical emergency to perform one.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that a law passed last year that allows life-saving abortion only when there is a “medical emergency” violates the “inherent right to life” under the state constitution.

The court did not strike down a separate 1910 abortion ban with an exception for preserving the mother’s life that does not require a medical emergency. It also did not address whether the state constitution includes a right to abortion under any other circumstances.

Oklahoma began enforcing both laws after the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers sued to challenge the laws.

“While we are relieved Oklahomans facing life-threatening situations have a right to care, the decision to maintain the state’s pre-Roe ban is unconscionable,” Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.

The office of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tuesday’s decision comes amid widespread uncertainty in states with abortion bans about when doctors can perform the procedure if needed to preserve the mother’s life or health. Some women have been forced to wait until they are in immediate danger before obtaining an abortion, even when doctors foresaw the risk much earlier.

The majority in Oklahoma found that a doctor can perform an abortion after determining with “a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability” that a pregnancy puts a mother’s life at risk, and that “absolute certainty” is not needed.

“We know of no other law that requires one to wait until there is an actual medical emergency in order to receive treatment when the harmful condition is known or probable to occur in the future,” they wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,” they said.

Four judges, all appointed by Republican governors, dissented, saying the majority failed to consider the interests of unborn children and that it went beyond the text of the constitution. One Republican appointee joined the court’s four Democratic appointees in the majority.

Twelve of the 50 states, including Oklahoma, now ban abortion outright while many others prohibit it after a certain length of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – Oklahoma’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that the state’s constitution protects a right to an abortion to preserve the mother’s life, and that a doctor does not need to wait until there is an immediate medical emergency to perform one.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that a law passed last year that allows life-saving abortion only when there is a “medical emergency” violates the “inherent right to life” under the state constitution.

The court did not strike down a separate 1910 abortion ban with an exception for preserving the mother’s life that does not require a medical emergency. It also did not address whether the state constitution includes a right to abortion under any other circumstances.

Oklahoma began enforcing both laws after the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers sued to challenge the laws.

“While we are relieved Oklahomans facing life-threatening situations have a right to care, the decision to maintain the state’s pre-Roe ban is unconscionable,” Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.

The office of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tuesday’s decision comes amid widespread uncertainty in states with abortion bans about when doctors can perform the procedure if needed to preserve the mother’s life or health. Some women have been forced to wait until they are in immediate danger before obtaining an abortion, even when doctors foresaw the risk much earlier.

The majority in Oklahoma found that a doctor can perform an abortion after determining with “a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability” that a pregnancy puts a mother’s life at risk, and that “absolute certainty” is not needed.

“We know of no other law that requires one to wait until there is an actual medical emergency in order to receive treatment when the harmful condition is known or probable to occur in the future,” they wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,” they said.

Four judges, all appointed by Republican governors, dissented, saying the majority failed to consider the interests of unborn children and that it went beyond the text of the constitution. One Republican appointee joined the court’s four Democratic appointees in the majority.

Twelve of the 50 states, including Oklahoma, now ban abortion outright while many others prohibit it after a certain length of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – Oklahoma’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that the state’s constitution protects a right to an abortion to preserve the mother’s life, and that a doctor does not need to wait until there is an immediate medical emergency to perform one.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that a law passed last year that allows life-saving abortion only when there is a “medical emergency” violates the “inherent right to life” under the state constitution.

The court did not strike down a separate 1910 abortion ban with an exception for preserving the mother’s life that does not require a medical emergency. It also did not address whether the state constitution includes a right to abortion under any other circumstances.

Oklahoma began enforcing both laws after the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers sued to challenge the laws.

“While we are relieved Oklahomans facing life-threatening situations have a right to care, the decision to maintain the state’s pre-Roe ban is unconscionable,” Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.

The office of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tuesday’s decision comes amid widespread uncertainty in states with abortion bans about when doctors can perform the procedure if needed to preserve the mother’s life or health. Some women have been forced to wait until they are in immediate danger before obtaining an abortion, even when doctors foresaw the risk much earlier.

The majority in Oklahoma found that a doctor can perform an abortion after determining with “a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability” that a pregnancy puts a mother’s life at risk, and that “absolute certainty” is not needed.

“We know of no other law that requires one to wait until there is an actual medical emergency in order to receive treatment when the harmful condition is known or probable to occur in the future,” they wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,” they said.

Four judges, all appointed by Republican governors, dissented, saying the majority failed to consider the interests of unborn children and that it went beyond the text of the constitution. One Republican appointee joined the court’s four Democratic appointees in the majority.

Twelve of the 50 states, including Oklahoma, now ban abortion outright while many others prohibit it after a certain length of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) – Oklahoma’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that the state’s constitution protects a right to an abortion to preserve the mother’s life, and that a doctor does not need to wait until there is an immediate medical emergency to perform one.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Oklahoma Supreme Court found that a law passed last year that allows life-saving abortion only when there is a “medical emergency” violates the “inherent right to life” under the state constitution.

The court did not strike down a separate 1910 abortion ban with an exception for preserving the mother’s life that does not require a medical emergency. It also did not address whether the state constitution includes a right to abortion under any other circumstances.

Oklahoma began enforcing both laws after the U.S. Supreme Court last June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which had guaranteed abortion rights nationwide. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers sued to challenge the laws.

“While we are relieved Oklahomans facing life-threatening situations have a right to care, the decision to maintain the state’s pre-Roe ban is unconscionable,” Planned Parenthood President Alexis McGill Johnson said in a statement.

The office of Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tuesday’s decision comes amid widespread uncertainty in states with abortion bans about when doctors can perform the procedure if needed to preserve the mother’s life or health. Some women have been forced to wait until they are in immediate danger before obtaining an abortion, even when doctors foresaw the risk much earlier.

The majority in Oklahoma found that a doctor can perform an abortion after determining with “a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability” that a pregnancy puts a mother’s life at risk, and that “absolute certainty” is not needed.

“We know of no other law that requires one to wait until there is an actual medical emergency in order to receive treatment when the harmful condition is known or probable to occur in the future,” they wrote in an unsigned opinion.

“Requiring one to wait until there is a medical emergency would further endanger the life of the pregnant woman and does not serve a compelling state interest,” they said.

Four judges, all appointed by Republican governors, dissented, saying the majority failed to consider the interests of unborn children and that it went beyond the text of the constitution. One Republican appointee joined the court’s four Democratic appointees in the majority.

Twelve of the 50 states, including Oklahoma, now ban abortion outright while many others prohibit it after a certain length of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson in New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Bill Berkrot)

(Reuters) -Classes were canceled for more than half a million students across Los Angeles on Tuesday after education support staff launched a three-day strike backed by a teachers’ union that refused to cross their picket line.

Members of the Service Employees International Union Local 99, which represents school bus drivers, custodians, cafeteria workers and classroom assistants, formed picket lines and marched outside of school buildings across the Los Angeles Unified School District on Tuesday morning, demanding higher wages and smaller classroom sizes.

The superintendent of the second largest school district in the United States acknowledged workers had been underpaid for years and said he was committed to reaching a deal.

“We love our students, and we’re here for the students. But if we can’t properly take care of our kids, how can we properly come here and work as well?” Lynneier Boyd-Peterson, a striking bus driver, told KTLA 5 television news.

She was one of the striking workers who marched in pouring rain under umbrellas early on Tuesday carrying “Respect Us!” signs at a school bus yard, local media reported.

The walkout, expected through Thursday, began after last-minute negotiations broke down on Monday, forcing school officials to cancel classes for 565,000 students.

The union was also planning to picket at schools and in front of Los Angeles Unified School District headquarters later in the day.

Beyond classes, the strike disrupts social services on which many students at more than 1,000 schools in Los Angeles and surrounding communities depend, including meals and counseling. The city opened dozens of meal and safe-place sites Tuesday for students.

“I will make sure the wellbeing of L.A. students always comes first as I continue to work with all parties to reach an agreement to reopen the schools and guarantee fair treatment of all LAUSD workers,” Mayor Karen Bass said in a statement.

The strike follows a six-day teachers’ strike in 2019 and the coronavirus pandemic that closed in-classroom instruction for more than a year in 2020 and 2021.

The union, which said 96% of its membership had authorized the strike, is demanding a 30% salary increase plus an additional $2 per hour for the lowest-paid workers, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The 35,000-member United Teachers Los Angeles union said it is supporting the action as it wants to bring educational workers out of poverty, reduce class sizes and ensure each school is fully staffed.

Los Angeles Unified Superintendent Alberto Carvalho told reporters on Monday the district was offering a 23% raise plus a 3% bonus and that “there are still additional resources to put on the table.”

“I understand our employees’ frustration that has been brewing, not just for a couple of years, but probably for decades,” Carvalho said in a statement on Tuesday, acknowledging that workers had been underpaid for years and offering to remain on standby around the clock in order to reach a deal to end the strike early.

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Bradley Perrett, Chizu Nomiyamam, Bill Berkrot, Donna Bryson and Jonathan Oatis)

By Jack Queen and Helen Coster

WILMINGTON, Delaware (Reuters) -Lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems on Tuesday told the Delaware judge in its $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox Corp that Fox News knew allegations of vote-rigging in the 2020 U.S. election were false but continued airing the claims in pursuit of ratings.

Dominion’s attorneys made the argument as both sides sought during a pretrial hearing to convince Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis that he should rule in their favor without the need for the case to go to trial as scheduled on April 17.

Internal Fox communications prove that the network repeatedly hosted guests who it knew were peddling “reckless” and “completely crazy” falsehoods because it was losing viewers to far-right media competitors, Dominion’s lawyers told the judge.

“They chose to let the story be out there – to let out the hoax, to release the Kraken,” lawyer Rodney Smolla said, referring to a nickname for Sidney Powell, a lawyer for Republican former President Donald Trump. “And why? Because Fox viewers were abandoning Fox.”

If the judge finds Fox liable for defamation at this stage of the litigation, the trial would concern only how much it must pay Dominion in damages.

Dominion sued Fox Corp and Fox News in 2021, accusing them of ruining its reputation by airing false claims by Trump and his lawyers that the Denver-based company’s voting machines were used to rig the outcome of the election against him and in favor of Democrat Joe Biden. Fox has said the network’s 2020 election coverage was constitutionally protected speech.

Davis seemed particularly interested in whether 20 allegedly defamatory statements cited by Dominion were facts, opinions or a mix of the two. He also sought clarity on Dominion’s legal theories. 

“Are you saying that Fox adopts Trump’s statements just because the president said at a press conference that the election was a hoax?” Davis asked.

Lawyer Justin Nelson answered no, saying Dominion’s allegation is that Fox knew Trump’s lawyers were going to make false claims. 

It is one of the most closely watched defamation cases involving a major U.S. media organization in years, pitting the influential cable news network that features conservative commentators against a voting-technology company that claims Fox’s coverage destroyed its business.

Separately, a Fox News producer filed a lawsuit on Monday accusing the network’s lawyers of pressuring her to provide misleading testimony in the Dominion case.

Abby Grossberg, who was head of booking for Fox News host Tucker Carlson, said coaching and intimidation by Fox lawyers before her deposition last year left her “feeling pressured not to name names or to implicate others, in particular prominent male on-air personalities and Fox News executives.” She also said Fox exposed her and others to rampant sexism and misogyny.

Grossberg said Fox put her on administrative leave on Monday, effectively ending her career at the network.

Fox said in a statement on Tuesday the network brought in an independent outside counsel to investigate concerns raised by Grossberg following a “critical performance review.”

“Her allegations in connection with the Dominion case are baseless and we will vigorously defend Fox against all of her claims,” Fox added.

In the defamation case, both sides are seeking summary judgment – asking the judge to decide the case in their favor before it goes to a jury trial.

Fox has argued in court papers that coverage of election-rigging claims by Trump and his lawyers was inherently newsworthy and protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press.

Dominion has said in filings that a trove of documents unearthed in the case’s discovery process prove Fox executives and news staff knew the election-rigging claims were false but aired them anyway in pursuit of ratings. Dominion argues this meets the “actual malice” standard to win a defamation case under which plaintiffs must prove a defendant knowingly spread false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

Fox has accused Dominion of cherry-picking from internal communications and deposition testimony to paint a misleading picture.

(Reporting by Jack Queen in Wilmington and Helen Coster in New York; Editing by Will Dunham and Amy Stevens)