A federal appeals court reinstated a 2009 jury verdict Tuesday that Microsoft Corp. infringed on patents held by software maker Uniloc Inc., reversing a judge's decision to the contrary, but it also granted Microsoft a new trial on damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the jury's April 2009 verdict on patent infringement was supported by "substantial" evidence, so it reversed a federal judge's decision in September of that year that overturned the jury's verdict.

Irvine, Calif.-based Uniloc makes software that prevents people from illegally installing software on multiple computers. In a lawsuit filed in 2003, Uniloc argued that Microsoft's "product activation" system used in Windows XP, Office XP and Office 2003 programs infringed on several parts of a related patent, and that the software maker had copied Uniloc's technology rather than develop similar work on its own.

The jury in 2009 had found this to be the case, and awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages. On Tuesday, the appeals court agreed on the patent infringement but called the jury's damages award "fundamentally tainted," and granted a new trial on the damages.

The city's campaign to scare smokers with grotesque images of decaying teeth or a diseased lung wherever tobacco products are sold was struck down Wednesday by a federal judge who concluded that only the federal government can dictate warnings that must accompany the promotion of cigarettes.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff handed a victory to the nation's three largest tobacco manufacturers and the retailers who sell their products when he ruled on the legality of a 2009 city Board of Health code change requiring the display of smoking cessation signs where tobacco products are sold.

"Even merchants of morbidity are entitled to the full protection of the law, for our sake as well as theirs," Rakoff said. He released the written decision just days before an agreement among the parties to delay enforcement of the rule was to expire on Saturday.

He said the federal Labeling Act, first enacted in 1965, sought to balance public and commercial interests with a comprehensive federal program to deal with cigarette labeling and advertising. He said it was created in part to prevent "diverse, nonuniform and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations." Part of the law dictated that no state law could impose a requirement or prohibition with respect to advertising or promotion of cigarettes, he noted.

The Iowa Supreme Court has upheld a decision to levy corporate income taxes against fried chicken giant KFC.

At question is whether the state can impose income tax on revenue received by a company that doesn't have a presence in Iowa. KFC doesn't own any restaurants or have employees in Iowa. All KFC's in the state are owned by independent franchisers.

The Iowa Department of Revenue and Finance assessed KFC more than $248,000 for unpaid corporate income taxes in 2001.

Mark Schuling, the agency's director, says any corporation that collects revenue in Iowa should pay taxes.

KFC Corp., whose parent company is Louisville, Ky.-based Yum Brands Inc., challenged the assessment saying under Iowa law it was not subject to taxes because it didn't have property in the state.

Attorneys general in four Gulf Coast states are urging oil spill victims to check with lawyers before settling claims against BP PLC.

They issued consumer advisories Friday in Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas. Earlier this week Claims Administrator Kenneth Feinberg completed his plan to give claimants three payment options — interim, final and quick.

Those opting for final or quick payments must sign away their right to sue BP for additional damages. The attorneys general said they should consult with a lawyer first.

BP's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded in April, spilling oil into the water for three months. In Florida only a few beaches were fouled, but the spill scared away tourists and businesses across the state had financial losses.

The lawyer for a Sioux Falls defense attorney being tried on child pornography charges told a federal court jury that Leo Flynn sought out the material so he could give legal advice to clients.

The 62-year-old Flynn is facing charges including possession and distribution of child porn. South Dakota law gives immunity to lawyers and some others who work on such cases, but federal law doesn't. Defense attorney Rory Durkin says the state law should apply in Flynn's case.

Prosecutors say they found hundreds of pornographic files on Flynn's computer. On Tuesday, they played audio of an interview with investigators in which Flynn said he searched for child porn about once a week.

The Argus Leader reports that Flynn's trial is expected to last late into the week.

The retention vote in which three Iowa Supreme Court justices were ousted was illegal, according to a lawsuit seeking to keep the three justices from being tossed from the bench.

The lawsuit claims the vote violated the Iowa Constitution, which requires judicial retention votes to be held on a separate ballot.

Chief Justice Marsha Ternus and justices Michael Streit and David Baker were voted off following a campaign by groups opposed to the court's unanimous decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Iowa.

The Des Moines Register reported that the lawsuit, filed by attorneys Thomas W. George, John P. Roehrick and Carlton Salmons, asks for a temporary judicial order that would prohibit the judges from leaving the court when their terms expire at the end of December.

Several Union City residents have filed a class action lawsuit against United Water on allegations that the company cheated customers by selling them useless warranties that do not cover repairs.

The warranties, which cost about $150 a year, are supposed to cover the repair of broken water pipes, sewer pipes and other items, the attorneys for three 18th Street plaintiffs, said. Although the application says "Guaranteed Acceptance" in large print, there are actually many exclusions, the attorneys said.

Multi-unit dwellings are actually excluded from the warranty, but that has not stopped United Water from marketing and selling the policies to the owners of multi-unit buildings, the lawsuit says.

The suit was recently filed in Bergen County Superior Court in Hackensack, where United Water is based.

Attorneys Carl Mayer and Bruce Afran held a press conference Tuesday at the courthouse. Afran estimated that if all New Jersey residents in a situation similar to the plaintiffs were to join the suit, and the suit was successful, it could cost United Water as much as $50 million.