-By Stephanie Teplin and Harry Sandick
Second Circuit Criminal Law Blog
Categories / Search
Search Blog
Filter By Categories:
- Acquittal
- Appellate Procedure
- Bail Proceedings
- Conspiracy
- Conviction Error
- Cybercrimes/Technology
- DOJ Policy
- Due Process
- Evidentiary Rulings
- Expert Testimony
- FCPA
- Fifth Amendment
- Forfeiture
- Fourth Amendment
- Grand Jury
- Guidelines
- Guilty Plea
- Habeas Corpus
- Hearsay
- Honest Services Fraud
- Immigration
- Ineffective Assistance
- Insider Trading
- Internal Investigations
- Jurisdiction and Procedure
- Juror Misconduct
- Mandatory Minimums
- Maritime Law
- New Trial
- Newly Discovered Evidence
- Obstruction of Justice
- Plea
- Plea Agreements
- Politics
- Procedural Reasonableness
- Qualified Immunity
- Reasonableness Review
- Recusal
- Restitution
- Ripeness
- Rule 11
- Sarbanes-Oxley
- Scienter
- Second Amendment
- Section 2255
- Securities Fraud
- Sentencing
- Sentencing and Eighth Amendment
- Sixth Amendment
- Speedy Trial
- Statutory Interpretation
- Sufficiency
- Supervised Release
- Tax Fraud
- Tax Violations
- Trials and Evidentiary Rulings
- Vagueness
- Venue
- White Collar Crime
- Wire Fraud
Filter By Industries:
Habeas Corpus
Gupta Summary Order Republished As Opinion
January 11, 2019
Harry Sandick
Earlier this week, we discussed the Second Circuit’s summary order in the insider trading appeal by Rajat Gupta. Gupta was convicted in S.D.N.Y. as part of the string of successful prosecutions brought during the tenure of U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. The summary order affirmed the denial of Gupta’s 2255 petition, thereby leaving in place his conviction. The Second Circuit, without explanation, has withdrawn the summary order and published the same decision as a per curiam opinion. Other than the correction of minor typos, there appear to be no changes in the Court’s ruling. A link to the published opinion is here.
The import of this event is that the Gupta decision is now precedential and can be relied upon by future panels. The Court did not explain why it decided to publish Gupta as an opinion; there is no reference to one of the litigants seeking its publication. It is sensible for the Court to have taken this step, given the possibility of future habeas petitions from other defendants in insider trading cases. The decision’s discussion of the personal benefit issue also can be relied upon as precedent in the future, which may help shed some light on this tricky and controversial legal question.
Firm Highlights
Firm News
Firm Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Brita Products Company
On April 16, 2026, the firm secured an appellate victory on behalf of Brita Products Company ("Brita"), a unit of The Clorox Company, in a putative class action challenging the labeling of Brita's water filtration products. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the complaint, agreeing that the product labeling contained no misstatements and would not mislead a reasonable consumer.
Plaintiff originally sued Brita in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that certain representations on the products’ labels, such as “Cleaner, Great-Tasting Water,” implied that the filters fully remove all contaminants from tap water or reduce them to levels below lab detection limits. The district court granted Brita’s motion to dismiss...
Event
Four Firm Partners to Speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations
On Thursday, April 23 and Friday, April 24, Partners Laura Butzel, Robin Krause, Susan Vignola, and Justin Zaremby will speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations.
On April 23 at 4:45pm, Ms. Krause will speak on a panel titled "Navigating Attorney General Oversight and Investigations," discussing the scope of Attorney General oversight, an overview of the current landscape and share guidance on approaching Attorney General investigations and inquiries.
On April 24 at 10:30am, Ms. Butzel will speak on a session titled "The Heightened Focus on Terrorism and the Impact on Tax-Exempt Organizations." Ms. Butzel will join a panel for a program that will focus on the historic use of anti-terrorism rules and enforcement mechanisms in the...
Blog Post
All Activity Rings [Patents] Closed—Judge Rochon Grants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on Seven Design Patents
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted Defendant Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of seven design patents. Plaintiff Michael Shunock (“Shunock”) asserted U.S. Patent Nos.: D956,802; D956,803; D956,804; D956,805; D956,806; D956,807; and D956,808 (together, the “Asserted Patents”) against “Apple’s Activity Rings” used in the Apple Watch and iPhone. Slip Op. at 1-2. The Asserted Patents claim “‘[t]he ornamental design for a display screen with graphical user interface, as shown and described” in various figures. Id. at 12.
Shunock moved for partial summary judgment on invalidity and Apple moved for summary judgment on invalidity and non-infringement. Id. at 1-2. Both parties also moved to preclude expert testimony from opposing experts. Id. at 1-2. The court granted Apple’s...
Publication
Department of Labor Proposes New Safe Harbor for Fiduciary Investment Selection in Participant-Directed Retirement Plans
Introduction
On March 24, 2026, the Department of Labor (the “Department”) published proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) implementing Section 3(c) of President Trump's Executive Order 14330, titled "Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors" (the “Order”). The Proposed Regulations address the fiduciary duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") related to the selection of investment options for participant-directed individual account plans, including alternative investments as defined under the Order (“Alternative Investments”)[1].
The stated goal of the Proposed Regulations is to alleviate regulatory burdens and litigation risks that, in the Department's view, have interfered with the ability of American workers to achieve sufficiently competitive returns and meaningful asset diversification through their retirement accounts. The Department...
Publication
The Administration Is Illegally Firing Court-Appointed US Attorneys
The U.S. Department of Justice isn’t winning many friends on the front lines of the federal judiciary, the U.S. district courts. Besides repeatedly violating court orders, the DOJ is also thumbing its nose at the district courts when they attempt to appoint qualified persons to serve as U.S. attorneys in the absence of a Senate-confirmed nominee. Recent headlines tell the story: “U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House” and "DOJ fires US attorney hours after judges appoint him."
The terminations by Todd Blanche, the deputy U.S. attorney general, are graceless and bombastic:
“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.”
"Here we go again. [Eastern District of Virginia]...
Blog Post
It’s All Relative: Judge Komitee Holds That an Infringing Sale Can Take Place at Multiple Times Both Before and After a Patent Issues
Judge Eric Komitee recently denied a motion to dismiss patent infringement claims accusing flood prevention products sold pursuant to a contract that was entered into before the patent issued but delivered and installed after issuance.
In 2013, plaintiff FloodBreak, LLC filed its patent application for a device that prevents flooding in subway systems. In 2016, while that application was pending, defendants T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. and James P. Moriarty, Jr. (collectively, “TMS”) contracted with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) to supply flood-mitigation devices for the New York City subway. After the patent issued in 2017, FloodBreak sued TMS’s supplier and obtained a stipulated judgment that its devices infringe. FloodBreak then filed suit against TMS alleging infringement by TMS’s offer...
Firm News
Firm Achieves Significant Lanham Act Win for Johnson & Johnson
On April 17, 2026, Patterson Belknap secured a significant victory for our clients, Johnson & Johnson and Janssen Biotech, Inc. (“J&J”), when the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a preliminary injunction in a Lanham Act suit filed by Bayer HealthCare LLC (“Bayer”).
The dispute concerned a retrospective scientific study sponsored by J&J that compared the real-world efficacy of both companies’ prostate cancer medications, concluding that J&J’s ERLEADA was associated with a reduction in overall risk of death approximately 50% greater than Bayer’s NUBEQA. Bayer alleged that the study was methodologically flawed, and that J&J’s publication of the study results therefore constituted “false advertising.” The statements at issue included a presentation given by the study authors at a medical...
Blog Post
“Not an Arm of New Jersey”: Judge Gardephe Denies Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity
On March 30, 2026, United States District Judge Paul G. Gardephe (S.D.N.Y) denied Defendant New Jersey Transit Corporation’s (“NJ Transit”) motion for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Bytemark, Inc.’s (“Bytemark”) claims. Bytemark, Inc. v. Xerox Corp., et al, No. 17-cv-1803 (S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2026).
Bytemark provides a secure mobile ticketing platform for transit, tourism, and events. Bytemark has sued several defendants, including NJ Transit, for patent infringement, breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. Bytemark alleges that two defendants, after entering into confidentiality agreements with Bytemark, used Bytemark’s intellectual property and trade secrets to secure a contract with NJ Transit for mobile ticketing and cut Bytemark out of the bidding process. Id. at *2–4.
In October 2022, NJ...
Event
Justin Zaremby to Speak at American Law Institute’s 2026 Legal Issues in Museum Administration Conference
On Wednesday, April 29, Partner Justin Zaremby will speak on a panel at the American Law Institute's 2026 Legal Issues in Museum Administration conference titled "Structuring Collaborations Between Museums and Third Parties." Mr. Zaremby will join Barbara Andrews (Legal Manager and IACUC Administrator, California Academy of Sciences) and Cristina del Valle (Senior Associate General Counsel, The Metropolitan Museum of Art) to explore important governance, tax, and IP considerations for museums' transactional activities, including corporate sponsorships, licensing, and joint programming with for-profit and nonprofit entities.
To learn more, please click here.
Publication
Ninth Circuit Finds First Amendment Right to Donate to Patient Assistance Charities, With Possible Impact on Enforcement of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued a published decision striking down California’s Assembly Bill 290 (“AB 290”) on First Amendment grounds. See Fresenius Med. Care Orange Cnty., LLC v. Bonta, No. 24-3654 (9th Cir. Apr. 7, 2026). Its central holding was that providers of medical services have a protected First Amendment right to make donations to patient assistance charities that engage in expressive activity, even if those donations are driven by commercial self-interest. Although the case did not directly involve the federal Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”)—or any federal statute—it arguably calls into question the constitutionality of AKS proceedings often brought against pharmaceutical manufacturers that make analogous donations to patient assistance charities out of alleged self-interest.
AB 290, the California statute at issue...
Firm News
Firm Secures Appellate Victory on Behalf of Brita Products Company
On April 16, 2026, the firm secured an appellate victory on behalf of Brita Products Company ("Brita"), a unit of The Clorox Company, in a putative class action challenging the labeling of Brita's water filtration products. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court ruling dismissing the complaint, agreeing that the product labeling contained no misstatements and would not mislead a reasonable consumer.
Plaintiff originally sued Brita in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that certain representations on the products’ labels, such as “Cleaner, Great-Tasting Water,” implied that the filters fully remove all contaminants from tap water or reduce them to levels below lab detection limits. The district court granted Brita’s motion to dismiss...
Event
Four Firm Partners to Speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing & Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations
On Thursday, April 23 and Friday, April 24, Partners Laura Butzel, Robin Krause, Susan Vignola, and Justin Zaremby will speak at Georgetown Law Lifelong Learning's 2026 Conference on Representing and Managing Tax-Exempt Organizations.
On April 23 at 4:45pm, Ms. Krause will speak on a panel titled "Navigating Attorney General Oversight and Investigations," discussing the scope of Attorney General oversight, an overview of the current landscape and share guidance on approaching Attorney General investigations and inquiries.
On April 24 at 10:30am, Ms. Butzel will speak on a session titled "The Heightened Focus on Terrorism and the Impact on Tax-Exempt Organizations." Ms. Butzel will join a panel for a program that will focus on the historic use of anti-terrorism rules and enforcement mechanisms in the...
Blog Post
All Activity Rings [Patents] Closed—Judge Rochon Grants Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-infringement on Seven Design Patents
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted Defendant Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of seven design patents. Plaintiff Michael Shunock (“Shunock”) asserted U.S. Patent Nos.: D956,802; D956,803; D956,804; D956,805; D956,806; D956,807; and D956,808 (together, the “Asserted Patents”) against “Apple’s Activity Rings” used in the Apple Watch and iPhone. Slip Op. at 1-2. The Asserted Patents claim “‘[t]he ornamental design for a display screen with graphical user interface, as shown and described” in various figures. Id. at 12.
Shunock moved for partial summary judgment on invalidity and Apple moved for summary judgment on invalidity and non-infringement. Id. at 1-2. Both parties also moved to preclude expert testimony from opposing experts. Id. at 1-2. The court granted Apple’s...
Publication
Department of Labor Proposes New Safe Harbor for Fiduciary Investment Selection in Participant-Directed Retirement Plans
Introduction
On March 24, 2026, the Department of Labor (the “Department”) published proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) implementing Section 3(c) of President Trump's Executive Order 14330, titled "Democratizing Access to Alternative Assets for 401(k) Investors" (the “Order”). The Proposed Regulations address the fiduciary duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") related to the selection of investment options for participant-directed individual account plans, including alternative investments as defined under the Order (“Alternative Investments”)[1].
The stated goal of the Proposed Regulations is to alleviate regulatory burdens and litigation risks that, in the Department's view, have interfered with the ability of American workers to achieve sufficiently competitive returns and meaningful asset diversification through their retirement accounts. The Department...
Publication
The Administration Is Illegally Firing Court-Appointed US Attorneys
The U.S. Department of Justice isn’t winning many friends on the front lines of the federal judiciary, the U.S. district courts. Besides repeatedly violating court orders, the DOJ is also thumbing its nose at the district courts when they attempt to appoint qualified persons to serve as U.S. attorneys in the absence of a Senate-confirmed nominee. Recent headlines tell the story: “U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House” and "DOJ fires US attorney hours after judges appoint him."
The terminations by Todd Blanche, the deputy U.S. attorney general, are graceless and bombastic:
“Judges don’t pick U.S. Attorneys, @POTUS does. See Article II of our Constitution. You are fired, Donald Kinsella.”
"Here we go again. [Eastern District of Virginia]...
Blog Post
It’s All Relative: Judge Komitee Holds That an Infringing Sale Can Take Place at Multiple Times Both Before and After a Patent Issues
Judge Eric Komitee recently denied a motion to dismiss patent infringement claims accusing flood prevention products sold pursuant to a contract that was entered into before the patent issued but delivered and installed after issuance.
In 2013, plaintiff FloodBreak, LLC filed its patent application for a device that prevents flooding in subway systems. In 2016, while that application was pending, defendants T. Moriarty & Son, Inc. and James P. Moriarty, Jr. (collectively, “TMS”) contracted with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) to supply flood-mitigation devices for the New York City subway. After the patent issued in 2017, FloodBreak sued TMS’s supplier and obtained a stipulated judgment that its devices infringe. FloodBreak then filed suit against TMS alleging infringement by TMS’s offer...
