More info…
(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.
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.
Kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Commercial Law, Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit against a brand-name and a generic drug manufacturer alleging restraint-of-trade and monopolization of the market for a blood pressure medication, judgment for defendants is affirmed in part over plaintiff’s evidentiary challenges, but reversed in part where plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to go to trial on its claim that defendant had violated the Sherman Act by enforcing a patent obtained through fraud.
In re Comiskey
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a method and system for mandatory arbitration involving legal documents, such as wills or contracts, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1-59 of applicant’s patent application as obvious in view of the prior art and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 103 is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) applicant’s independent claims 1 and 32 and most of their dependent claims are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101; and 2) with respect to two other independent claims and various other dependent claims a remand to the PTO was necessary for it to consider the section 101 question in the first instance.
tampa bankruptcy attorney
More info…
Readers interested in the regulatory ramifications of airline alliances will want to peruse Prof. Philip G. Gayle’s recently published study, An Empirical Analysis of the Competitive Effects of the Delta/Continental/Northwest Code-Share Alliance, 51 J.L. & Econ. 743 (2008). Gayle, an…
Meta: No Auto Bailout…For Now
Yesterday’s blog post concluded with a brief remark on the possibility of U.S. airlines falling in line behind the automakers if the global economic crisis proves too damaging. News that the bailout bill died in the Senate Thursday (see The…
European Court of First Instance Nullifies Ryanair/Charleroi Decision
Irish low-cost carrier Ryanair won a noteworthy victory over the European Commission today as the European Court of First Instance (CFI) annulled the Commission’s 2004 decision which had deemed the advantages authorized by Belgium’s Walloon Region and Brussels South Charleroi…
aviation law attorney
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Labor & Employment Law) In a claim brought by plaintiff on behalf of himself and other aggrieved employees against defendant employer-Verizon Wireless alleging various Labor Code violations, demurrer sustained in favor of defendant ruling that plaintiff’s lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to amend to state claims that accrued after the date of the earlier action.
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an employment discrimination action brought by former employee, a researcher on the biological aspect of zebrafish, who was terminated after he stated he did not believe in the theory of evolution, denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as a decision not to apply equitable tolling principles in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, are affirmed where: 1) the request to amend was futile; and 2) the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply as plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment discrimination claim.
Florida Attorney
More info…
(U.S. 1st Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an appeal from a remitted jury award to plaintiff based on the failure of defendant-employer to accommodate his disability as required by federal and state law, the judgment below is affirmed over: 1) defendant’s claim that the evidence was insufficient to support either liability or the remaining damages award; 2) its claim that the statute of limitations had run on the claims; and 3) plaintiff’s claim that the district court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on punitive damages and in denying attorney’s fees pending final judgment.
Lebron v. Sanders
(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam) In a matter brought by habeas petitioner, motion for an extension of time to file motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for certificate of appealability with respect to writ of habeas corpus is granted where: 1) local district rules required respondent to provide petitioner with copies of unreported decisions or decisions reported exclusively on computerized databases that were cited in its opposition to the habeas petition; and 2) petitioner could not access, without cost, some of the federal case law that formed part of the substantive basis of the district court’s challenged opinion.
Advantedge Bus. v. Thomas E. Mestmaker
&
Assocs., Inc.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, ERISA, Insurance Law, Labor & Employment Law) In litigation concerned a health-insurance plan plaintiff, a professional employer organization providing payroll and health insurance services, purchased to cover its clients and employees, dismissal of the case without prejudice for lack of prosecution is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in the decision to dismiss without prejudice; 2) the circuit court adopts a prudential rule allowing the appellate court to review an interlocutory order preceding a dismissal for failure to prosecute in rare cases when it makes sense to do so; and 3) this was not one of the rare cases.
Abraham v. Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst.
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law) In an employment discrimination action brought by former employee, a researcher on the biological aspect of zebrafish, who was terminated after he stated he did not believe in the theory of evolution, denial of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, as well as a decision not to apply equitable tolling principles in granting defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, are affirmed where: 1) the request to amend was futile; and 2) the doctrine of equitable tolling could not apply as plaintiff failed to exercise diligence in meeting any of the filing deadlines for his employment discrimination claim.
St Petersburg Lawyer
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 5, 2009 6:15 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe