Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Accident attorney tampa) Everson v. Leis

More info…
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Injury And Tort Law) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action based on Plaintiff’s alleged mistreatment by police, the District Court’s order reopening discovery is reversed, where Defendants’ qualified immunity rendered the order futile.

estate attorney tampa

(Tampa bankruptcy attorney) In re Comiskey

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.

Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action, summary judgment for defendant on the ground that plaintiff’s patent was invalid for obviousness is vacated and remanded where the evidence before the district court did not support the court’s conclusion that a prior art patent disclosed the use of compatible polymeric materials described in plaintiff’s patent for desiccant containers.

La Resolana Architects PA v. Reno, Inc.

(U.S. 10th Cir., Construction, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Property Law & Real Estate) In a copyright infringement action related to designs for modular homes, judgment for Defendants is affirmed where the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Defendants, as a factual matter, did not copy Plaintiffs’ work.

tampa divorce attorney