More info…
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In a suit alleging that a title company violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act’s anti-kickback and anti-fee-splitting provisions, dismissal for lack of standing is reversed where the plain meaning of the statutory language and the authorities examined by the court indicate that Congress created a private right of action to impose damages where kickbacks and unearned fees have occurred, even where there is no overcharge.
Bernstein v. Feiner
(N.Y., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law) Appeal is dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
tampa dui attorney
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action, grant of plaintiff’s motion judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) finding the patent was not invalid is reversed where: 1) the district court’s denial of a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of witness, not skilled in the pertinent art, was an abuse of discretion; and 2) as a matter of law, claim 1 of the patent was invalid for obviousness.
Walton v. US
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Copyright, Government Law, Intellectual Property) 28 U.S.C. section 1498(b), which governs copyright infringement suits against the federal government, does not authorize this suit by a federal prisoner seeking to recover for the government’s use of desk-blotter calendars he created as part of his assigned duties in prison. Plaintiff was “in the service of the United States” when he developed and produced the calendar at a government facility, using government-furnished computers, under the supervision of government employees, in exchange for modest compensation.
clearwater attorney
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent, Transportation) In a patent infringement action relating to pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies, petition for writ of mandamus to vacate decision denying petitioner’s motion to transfer venue and to direct district court to transfer case to another state is granted where: 1) petitioner met its difficult burden of establishing that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer of venue to the Southern District of Ohio; and 2) mandamus relief was appropriate.
Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.
(U.S. 11th Cir., Construction, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Property Law & Real Estate) In a copyright infringement action alleging that district court erred in its examination of the two-floor plan at issue, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the floor plans at issue were protected by compilation copyrights which were “thin”; and 2) the district court correctly determined that the differences in the protectable expression were so significant that, as a matter of law, no reasonable properly-instructed jury of lay observers could find the works substantially similar.
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies) District court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining defendant from selling its product after jury found willful infringement of plaintiff’s valid patent. The court correctly applied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief, finding that: 1) plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury; 2) remedies at law were inadequate; 3) balance of hardships warranted issuance of injunctive relief; and 4) the public interest was not harmed by issuance of the permanent injunction, despite defendant’s assertion that its infringing product was safer than plaintiff’s product.
tampa florida lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent-infringement case, summary judgment dismissing all claims against defendant is affirmed in part but vacated in part where the district court applied erroneous legal standards for assessing: (1) whether defendant contributorily infringed two patents and (2) whether co-defendant induced infringement of the two patents.
Coyne’s
&
Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC
(U.S. 8th Cir., Commercial Law, Contracts, Copyright, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets, Trademark) In a suit related to the early termination of a distributor agreement, denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where plaintiff could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on its claims since the distributor agreement was no longer in effect, and defendant’s termination of the agreement did not fall under the Minnesota Franchise Act’s termination requirements since plaintiff had never paid defendant a franchise fee.
tampa attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
January 29, 2009 11:45 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe