More info…
(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.
Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inv. Dist., LLC
(U.S. 10th Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a Lanham Act action based on Defendant’s sale of Plaintiff’s products without Plaintiff’s serial number label, a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff is affirmed, where the “first sale” doctrine did not apply because Defendant was doing more than simply stocking, displaying and reselling Plaintiff’s products.
CQ Inc. v. TXU Mining Co. LP
(U.S. 5th Cir., Contracts, Intellectual Property, Oil & Gas Law, Trade Secrets) In a breach of contract action regarding a coal mining operation, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where: 1) the trade secret allegedly misappropriated by Defendant was not protected by Texas law; and 2) the agreement alleged by Plaintiff did not satisfy the statute of frauds.
Felix v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent, Transportation) In a patent infringement action involving a storage system in a vehicle bed, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where there was no literal infringement of plaintiff’s patent as the court’s construction of the disputed terms in the patent was correct and thus defendant’s product did not satisfy the limitation of the patent.
clearwater attorney
More info…
(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.
tampa dui attorney
More info…
(U.S. 5th Cir., Contracts, Intellectual Property, Oil & Gas Law, Trade Secrets) In a breach of contract action regarding a coal mining operation, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where: 1) the trade secret allegedly misappropriated by Defendant was not protected by Texas law; and 2) the agreement alleged by Plaintiff did not satisfy the statute of frauds.
Euclid Chem. Co. v. Vector Corrosion Tech., Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a dispute over the ownership of a patent, district court’s judgement in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) the court erred in granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, as the agreement allegedly assigning ownership of the patent from plaintiff to defendant was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence should have been considered to ascertain the parties’ intent; and 2) district court abused its discretion in finding that plaintiff had abandoned its bona fide purchaser claim, as the action was a dismissal for failure to prosecute rather than a grant of summary judgment.
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.
Florida Attorney
More info…
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Construction, Injury And Tort Law) In a negligence action regarding flood control construction projects, the dismissal of Defendant’s third-party complaint is affirmed, where Defendant’s claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior state court action.
Drobnak v. Anderson Corp.
(U.S. 8th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Product Liability) In a class action involving insulated glass products, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ amended class complaint alleging defects in defendant’s windows as the complaint did not meet FRCP rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement; 2) court did not err in finding that plaintiffs’ UCC-based claims should be dismissed as they did not provide adequate notice of the complaint; 3) court did not err in dismissing plaintiff Drobnak’s UCC-based claims as they were barred by the statute of limitations; and 4) court did not err in denying plaintiffs’ requests for permission to file a second amended complaint.
Whittenburg v. Werner Enters. Inc.
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Injury And Tort Law) In a tort action arising from an auto accident, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed, where Plaintiff’s counsel during closing argument placed before the jury fictitious admissions never uttered by Defendants and launched vituperative and unprovoked attacks on Defendants and their counsel.
accident attorney tampa
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
April 11, 2009 9:40 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe