Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Tampa attorney) Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a vehicle seat control system that provides massage capability, District Court’s of grant summary judgment of dismissal of the complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to join an alleged co-inventor is reversed, where any contribution co-Defendant made to the invention was insignificant and therefore prevents it from attaining the status of a co-inventor.

Data Mfg., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

(U.S. 8th Cir., Administrative Law, Copyright, Transportation) In a dispute over billing fees, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed in part where all but one of DMI’s claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was not preempted, and that claim is remanded for further proceedings.

OBX-Stock, Inc. v. Bicast, Inc.

(U.S. 4th Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a trademark infringement action concerning the term “OBX,” summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where “OBX” was purely a geographically descriptive mark with no secondary meaning.

United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.

(U.S. 9th Cir., Contracts, Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law, Remedies, Trademark) In a suit by an insurance company for reimbursement of its settlement contribution in a trademark infringement action, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a “first publication” exclusion found in the excess insurance policy applied to infringement claims; 2) defendant was judicially estopped from claiming that it first published infringing material after it purchased the policy; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding two defendants jointly and severally liable for repayment of plaintiff’s contribution.

Agere Systems Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd.

(U.S. 5th Cir., Contracts, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Patent) Denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a dispute over a patent licensing agreement is reversed and remanded where there was a legitimate argument that an arbitration clause covered the present dispute, and the resolution of that argument should have been submitted to an arbitrator.

tampa dui attorney

(Florida lawyer) Data Mfg., Inc. v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. 8th Cir., Administrative Law, Copyright, Transportation) In a dispute over billing fees, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed in part where all but one of DMI’s claims are preempted by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was not preempted, and that claim is remanded for further proceedings.

tampa bankruptcy attorney

(Florida attorney) United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.

More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Contracts, Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law, Remedies, Trademark) In a suit by an insurance company for reimbursement of its settlement contribution in a trademark infringement action, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a “first publication” exclusion found in the excess insurance policy applied to infringement claims; 2) defendant was judicially estopped from claiming that it first published infringing material after it purchased the policy; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding two defendants jointly and severally liable for repayment of plaintiff’s contribution.

County of Santa Clara v. Super. Court of Santa Clara County

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Copyright, Government Law) In an issue of first impression in which petitioner-county sought extraordinary relief from a superior court order requiring it to disclose its geographic information system basemap to a real party in interest, petitioner’s writ petition is denied where: 1) the law calls for unrestricted disclosure of the information sought here, subject to the payment of costs to be determined by the trial court; and 2) petitioner-county is not entitled to the relief.

accident attorney tampa