More info…
(U.S. D.C. Cir., Civil Procedure, Indian Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In Plaintiff Indian tribe’s action to quiet title to certain lands, dismissal of the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the District Court properly dismissed the action without permitting jurisdictional discovery because Plaintiff failed to specify what facts such discovery would produce.
Joshua A. v. Rocklin Unified Sch. Dist.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Education Law) In a motion under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), requesting that Defendant school district be ordered to co-fund Plaintiff’s in-home intervention program, the motion is granted where the IDEA’s “stay put” provision applies to proceedings pending in the Courts of Appeals.
Spanair S.A. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
(Cal. App., Aerospace & Defense, Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law, Product Liability) In a products liability action involving an aircraft, trial court’s dismissal order is reversed where the court erred in dismissing the matter for failure to bring it to trial within three years of commencement of the action, as the court’s jurisdiction was suspended for all but seven months of the period between the filing of the complaint and entry of the dismissal order.
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.
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.
tampa florida lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Intellectual Property, Patent, Sanctions) In a patent infringement action involving electronic multi-function cards, co-defendant Access Systems Americas, Inc.’s motion for sanctions is granted where plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous, as it fails to present cogent or clear arguments for reversal, and plaintiff has made significant misrepresentations of the record and the law to the court. Sanction of defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees is awarded against plaintiff and its counsel, jointly and severally.
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.
Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Plymers, Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent, Trade Secrets) In a patent infringement and trade secret action involving water clarification, district court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff’s engaged in sanctionable conduct; 2) court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees against plaintiffs Clearvalue and Haase, but did abuse its discretion in imposing joint and several liability against plaintiff’s counsel Waggett; 3) the court abused its discretion in striking plaintiff’s pleadings and entering judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s patent infringement and trade secret claims; and 4) the court abused its discretion by using its inherent powers to impose additional sanctions against plaintiff.
tampa attorney
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.
Henkel Corp. v. The Procter
&
Gamble Co.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent interference action involving dishwasher detergent tablets, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences award of priority of invention to defendant is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that defendant demonstrated an actual reduction to practice of the invention before plaintiff.
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.
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.
In re Ferguson
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) The Board of Patent Appeals decision sustaining the rejection of plaintiff’s patent application, directed to a marketing paradigm for bringing products to market, is affirmed where plaintiff’s patent claims do not cover patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101 and are not within the parameters of the statutory requirements.
aviation lawyer
More info…
(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.
estate attorney tampa
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 25, 2009 9:45 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe