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.
Brescia v. Angelin
(Cal. App., Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action involving trade secrets, trial court’s dismissal is reversed where Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 does not require in every case that a trade secret claimant explain how the alleged trade secret differs from matters already known to skilled persons in the field. An explanation is required only when the details provided by the claimant to identify the secret are inadequate to permit the defendant to learn the boundaries of the secret and investigate defenses, or to permit the court to understand the designation and fashion discovery.
ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Sys., Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving medical technology, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly construed the disputed “spike” term and held noninfringement with respect to the asserted claims; 2) the asserted claims of the patents are invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. section 112; and 3) the award of attorney’s fees and Rule 11 sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent dispute concerning power inverter circuitry for laptop computers, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an expert under the Federal Rules as it was confronted by an unusually complex case and starkly conflicting expert testimony; and 2) there was no error in the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness as there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.
clearwater attorney
More info…
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, judgment for Defendants is reversed in part, where Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant’s president was acting within the scope of his employment when he stole Plaintiff’s blueprints, but affirmed in part, where another Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.
Jones v. Blige
(U.S. 6th Cir., Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ song, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where: 1) Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ song; and 2) Defendants wrote their song before the creation of Plaintiffs’ song.
attorney in tampa florida
More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action for Defendant sheriff’s alleged act of arson on Plaintiffs’ home, Defendant’s appeal from the denial of qualified immunity is dismissed, where the District Court summarily denied Defendant’s motion without explanation and it was better equipped to develop the record.
Boling-Bey v. US Parole Comm’n.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure) Plaintiff-Inmate’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, where Plaintiff failed to provide a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, and it was immaterial under the Prison Litigation Reform Act that Plaintiff obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court.
Bains v. Moores
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Injury And Tort Law, Securities Law) In a fraud action involving shares of stock, trial court’s grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence or demonstrate a triable issue of fact that defendant had knowledge of the fraud; 2) plaintiffs cannot use the group published information doctrine to support their cause of action as it is a pleading device that has no application in the summary judgment context; 3) trial court did not err in sustaining defendant’s demurrer to plaintiffs’ Corporations Code section 25504 claim as plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate record of the claim or demonstrate they could have made the claim at all; and 4) there was no abuse of discretion in refusing to stay the proceedings.
Famke v. Bam Building Co.
(Cal. App., Attorney’s Fees, Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Judgment Enforcement, Remedies) In an action involving losses from a judgment enforcement proceeding, trial court’s loss determination is affirmed where there is substantial evidence in the record to support the court’s factual determination as to each item of resulting loss. The award of attorney’s fees is vacated as it was not authorized under the relevant statute.
aviation accident lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving storm doors, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the three undisclosed items of prior art were material, as they were cumulative of prior art already before the Reexamination Panel; and 2) the district court’s correctly determined that the two office actions were non-cumulative and material. The case is remanded for further proceedings to redetermine the issue of intent and whether there was inequitable conduct.
attorney in tampa
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 25, 2009 6:05 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe