Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Tampa divorce lawyer) Clearvalue, Inc. v. Pearl River Plymers, Inc.

More info…
(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.

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.

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.

Situation Mgmt. Sys. v. ASP Consulting, LLC

(U.S. 1st Cir., Copyright, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law) In a copyright action involving training materials geared toward teaching techniques for effective communication and negotiation within the workplace, district court’s finding of noninfringement is vacated where: 1) district court erroneously excluded large portions of plaintiff’s works from its substantial similarity analysis based upon its misapplication of the originality requirement; and 2) the court improperly denied copyright protection to large portions of plaintiff’s works under the mistaken belief that they described a noncopyrightable process or system.

United Techs. Corp. v. Mazer

(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.

clearwater attorney

(Estate attorney tampa) Situation Mgmt. Sys. v. ASP Consulting, LLC

More info…
(U.S. 1st Cir., Copyright, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law) In a copyright action involving training materials geared toward teaching techniques for effective communication and negotiation within the workplace, district court’s finding of noninfringement is vacated where: 1) district court erroneously excluded large portions of plaintiff’s works from its substantial similarity analysis based upon its misapplication of the originality requirement; and 2) the court improperly denied copyright protection to large portions of plaintiff’s works under the mistaken belief that they described a noncopyrightable process or system.

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.

In re Gleave

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent action concerning methods of treating endocrine-regulated cancers, USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejection of plaintiff’s patent claims is affirmed where the Board properly held that the claims were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. sec. 102(b) as the compositions described in the plaintiff’s application were not new.

Clock Spring, L.P. v. Wrapmaster, Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., False Advertising, Intellectual Property, Oil & Gas Law, Patent) In a patent infringement claim involving methods for repairing damaged high-pressure gas pipes, district court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed where: 1) the claims of plaintiff’s patent are invalid as a matter of law due to prior public use; and 2) plaintiff’s Lanham Act false advertising claim fails, as plaintiff did not establish even a minimal prima facie case of false advertising.

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.

aviation lawyer

(Aviation accident lawyer) Plata v. Schwarzenegger

More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Government Law) In the State of California’s appeal from the District Court’s order directing the state to fund the projects of a receiver established to oversee prison medical care, the appeal is dismissed, where the order was not final, but was rather an interim step toward further proceedings.

tampa florida lawyer

(Attorney in tampa florida) Sentis Group, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.

More info…
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Sanctions) District Court’s order dismissing plaintiff’s claims as a sanction for abuse of discovery is vacated as the record contains several close questions as to the appropriateness of the overall sanction, and the denial of plaintiff’s motion asking the district court to remove itself is reversed. On remand, the case should be assigned to a new judge as the proceedings leading up to and including the sanction reflect a sufficiently high degree of antagonism to require reassignment.

Linton v. Shell Oil Co.

(U.S. 5th Cir., Admiralty, Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law) In an application for leave to appeal the denial of Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an action based on an injury at sea, the application is denied, where Defendants sought leave to appeal only the District Court’s conclusions of law and not the order setting forth its reasons for denying the summary judgment motion.

A. Bauer Mech., Inc. v. Joint Arbitration Bd. of the Plumbing Contractors’ Ass’n

(U.S. 7th Cir., Civil Procedure, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Labor & Employment Law) In an action involving an arbitration judgment, district court’s order enforcing the arbitration award is affirmed where: 1) the court did not abuse its discretion in accepting the pleading attached to defendant’s motion for judgment on its counterclaim, as the FRCP does not prohibit the court’s recognition of a pleading attached to a motion; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to vacate the default judgment, as it was a result of plaintiff’s failure to follow the court’s order to respond to the answer and counterclaim; and 3) award of attorney’s fees was reasonable.

Siems v. City of Minneapolis

(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Civil Rights) In an excessive force action against police officers, district court’s dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case as a sanction, as plaintiff engaged in a persistent pattern of delay that prejudiced defendant and violated every part of the district court’s pretrial order, despite an extension of time and a clear warning of the consequences of non-compliance.

Central Iowa Power Coop. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc.

(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Public Utilities) In a dispute involving compensation for use of power transmission facilities, district court’s judgment is reversed where the court erred by denying plaintiff’s motion to remand as the the resolution of plaintiff’s state court claims does not necessarily depend on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law sufficient to establish federal jurisdiction.

tampa dui attorney