More info…
(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Health Law, Insurance Law) In a dispute over health insurance benefits, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claim as being preempted is reversed and remanded where the district court erred in allowing removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1441 and dismissing the suit as completely preempted when disputes over jurisdictional facts remain.
Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc.
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Commercial Law, Consumer Protection Law, Insurance Law) In a class action suit against Farmers Insurance, grant of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is reversed where plaintiff did not carry his burden to show there is no triable issue of fact regarding the element of causation for his standing under the Business and Professions Code to prosecute the Unfair Competition Law cause of action on behalf of the class members. Defendant violated the Insurance Code’s disclosure requirement, as the term “premium” includes a service charge imposed for the payment in full of the stated premium for policy’s one-month term, which was not disclosed in the policy.
Slavchev v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
(U.S. 4th Cir., Admiralty, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Labor & Employment Law) In a breach of contract action involving disability, summary judgment for Defendant is vacated with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where diversity jurisdiction was lacking because both Plaintiff and Defendant were citizens of foreign nations.
Cadle Co. v. Neubauer
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Debt Collection) In an action to collect a loan guaranteed by Defendants, the denial of Defendants’ motion to vacate the District Court’s order substituting Plaintiff for the FDIC is affirmed, where Plaintiff had an interest in the loan and the substitution was a final order.
Florida Lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action related to a drug for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, the district court’s order in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in extending a statutory thirty-month stay preventing the FDA from approving defendant’s new drug application due to defendant’s discovery violations.
Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.
(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.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Group, Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving patents for treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction, various trial court rulings are affirmed over claims: 1) by defendants that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness, and their alternative motion for a new trial on obviousness; 2) by defendants that the district court erred in its construction of “wound” and its failure to find several claim terms indefinite; and 3) by plaintiff that the court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement, or, in the alternative, its request for a new trial on infringement.
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.
St Petersburg Lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving patents for treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction, various trial court rulings are affirmed over claims: 1) by defendants that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness, and their alternative motion for a new trial on obviousness; 2) by defendants that the district court erred in its construction of “wound” and its failure to find several claim terms indefinite; and 3) by plaintiff that the court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement, or, in the alternative, its request for a new trial on infringement.
aviation accident lawyer
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 16, 2009 3:15 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe