More info…
(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.
tampa dui attorney
More info…
(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.
attorney in tampa
More info…
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Entertainment Law, Injury And Tort Law) In a suit by an academic alleging that he was defamed by a passage in the book Freakonomics, dismissal of the claim is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff explicitly submitted to Illinois law; 2) federal procedural rules did not bar the court’s application of the innocent construction rule; 3) the contested statement was capable of a non-defamatory construction; and 4) the district court did not err in failing to address a pro quod defamation claim or in rejected a proposed amended complaint since plaintiff did not allege any special damages in either the original or amended complaints.
Warren v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law, Insurance Law) In an action brought by twin brothers injured in an automobile accident against defendant-insurer claiming that they were entitled to reformation of the insurance policy purchased by one brother and his purported wife, a ruling against both of the brothers is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to one brother where: 1) he was not a family member within the meaning of the policy at issue, and thus, he was not within the scope of an offer of additional personal injury protection (APIP) benefits and was entitled to reformation; and 2) the district court can determine on remand whether a cap should apply to the reformed policy, and also whether that plaintiff can pursue secondary claims.
Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Retail) In claim of stolen property by high-end apparel manufacturer against defendant low-price warehouse for refusing to disclose source of its products, grant of defendant’s demurrer to the operative complaint is reversed where the manufacturer alleged a cause of action for sale of stolen property.
aviation accident attorney
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Injury And Tort Law) In suit asserting claims of breach of contract and fraud, and other related charges in connection with a $75,000 investment made pursuant to terms of a February 1995 agreement, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is reversed where: 1) summary judgment is not appropriate unless only one reasonable inference can be drawn from undisputed facts; 2) it was plaintiff’s burden to show he was not negligent in failing to discover his injury sooner; however 3) whether plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence was a question of fact for the court or jury to decide.
Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. Box
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Transportation) In a suit over a state requirement that rail switching yards built or substantially renovated after February 2005 must include walkways parallel to each track for employees, judgment for defendant-state is affirmed where federal law does not supersede the state requirement.
Richland Bookmart, Inc. v. Knox County, Tennessee
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Constitutional Law, Entertainment Law) In a suit challenging the constitutionality of a county ordinance that establishes licensing requirements and regulations for sexually-oriented businesses, summary judgment for defendants and partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the ordinance is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation aimed at preventing the deleterious secondary effects of the businesses; 2) the county met its burden of providing a reasonable evidentiary basis for concluding that its regulation would have the desired effect; 3) plaintiffs did not meet their burden of casting direct doubt on the factual findings or rationale underlying the ordinance; 4) the ordinance was narrowly tailored and not overbroad; 5) the ordinance was not an unconstitutional prior restraint; 6) state law did not preempt the ordinance’s limitation on hours of operation; and 7) plaintiffs had no standing to challenge the civil disability provisions of the ordinance.
Madden v. Cowen
&
Co.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Securities Law) In a suit against an investment bank alleging that the bank misled plaintiffs regarding the sale of their closely held corporation to a publicly traded company, denial of a motion to remand to state court and dismissal are reversed and remanded with instructions to remand to state court where the suit falls within the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act’s savings clause, which preserves certain state-law actions.
Florida Lawyer
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 15, 2009 10:10 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe