Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Clearwater lawyer) 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.

tampa personal injury attorney

(Attorney in tampa) Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a trademark infringement action based on an infringing domain name, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of infringement; and 2) laches did not bar Plaintiff’s claim because Defendant was not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s delay in filing suit.

Tafas v. Doll

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In an action involving four rules recently promulgated by the USPTO, district court’s ruling is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) the four final rules challenged in this case are procedural and thus within the scope of the USPTO’s rulemaking authority; and 2) Final Rule 78 conflicts with 35 U.S.C. sec. 120 and is invalid.

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.

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.

Larson Mfg. Co. of South Dakota, Inc. v. Aluminart Products Ltd.

(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.

St Petersburg Lawyer

(Aviation attorney) Larson Mfg. Co. of South Dakota, Inc. v. Aluminart Products Ltd.

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.

Internet Specialties West, Inc. v. Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc.

(U.S. 9th Cir., Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a trademark infringement action based on an infringing domain name, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the jury was properly instructed on the elements of infringement; and 2) laches did not bar Plaintiff’s claim because Defendant was not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s delay in filing suit.

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.

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.

attorney tampa florida

(St petersburg attorney) Hauselt v. County of Butte

More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Government Law, Property Law & Real Estate, Water Law) In action for inverse condemnation in the flood control context, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) contrary to plaintiff’s argument, the trial court did decide the central issue of whether defendant implemented the master drainage plan and ruled against plaintiff; 2) the trial court properly applied the rule of reasonable conduct rather than strict liability; 3) there was sufficient evidence to support the court’s factual findings; and 4) plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations.

Consulting Eng’rs. Corp. v. Geometric Ltd.

(U.S. 4th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts) In a breach of contract action based on the wrongful hiring of Plaintiff’s employee, the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is affirmed, where electronic communications from India to Virginia did not make personal jurisdiction proper in Virginia, and the hiring occurred in India.

Bruns v. E-Commerce Exchange, Inc.

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Communications Law) In a class action brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, trial court judgment is reversed where the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s action for failure to bring the action to trial within the five-year period, as a partial stay of an action constitutes a stay of the prosecution of the action and thus certain periods of time should have been excluded from the five-year period such that plaintiff’s action should not have been dismissed.

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.

Palmer v. Valdez

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Evidence) In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner alleging excessive force, judgment for Defendants is affirmed, where the District Court’s requirement that Plaintiff agree to a bench trial to present telephonic testimony did not violate Plaintiff’s jury trial right, as it resulted from Plaintiff’s own failure to procure the live testimony he wanted.

tampa divorce attorney