More info…
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Trade Secrets) In an action seeking the return of trade secret information, the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed, where Defendant’s dealings with Plaintiff in Tennessee and jurisdiction over a highly integrated group of transactions should be adjudicated as a whole and not piecemeal.
Tur v. YouTube, Inc.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Cyberspace Law, Per Curiam) In a copyright infringement action that Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed, Defendant’s appeal from the denial of summary judgment is dismissed, where the appeal was moot because the fact that the resolution of the order might have preclusive effect in another action did not create subject matter jurisdiction.
Byrum v. Landreth
(U.S. 5th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Constitutional Law, Government Law) In a First Amendment challenge to a law restricting the use of certain advertising language by unlicensed interior designers, the denial of a preliminary injunction is reversed, where it was the government’s burden to prove the constitutionality of the commercial speech at issue and the District Court held that the government failed to meet that burden.
Beavers v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Insurance Law) In an action alleging breach of life insurance investment contracts, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the District Court correctly held that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Texas statute of limitations, because Plaintiffs’ alleged injury was not inherently undiscoverable.
Berrios v. New York City Hous. Auth.
(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Property Law & Real Estate) District court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded where the court dismissed the claims asserted on behalf of an incompetent party without determining whether defendant was a proper guardian ad litem and without the incompetent party having the benefit of counsel. Defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis status for the purpose of vacating the judgment is granted, and the case remanded for the district court to either allow the continuation of the action with the incompetent party represented by a suitable guardian ad litem and counsel or to dismiss the action without prejudice.
aviation accident lawyer
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Probate, Trusts & Estates) In a dispute involving a trust, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) the late filing by plaintiff of an opposition statement did not violate the policies of Code Civ. Pro. section 437c (b)(2) or (b)(3) and thus was not sufficient grounds for granting summary judgment; 2) defendants did not address the amendment to one trust in their motion for summary judgment, which was a material allegation; 3) defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the elder abuse cause of action was insufficient as he did not provide the necessary facts to support the motion; 4) trial court improperly granted summary adjudication with respect to the cause of action for a constructive trust as defendants did not establish all the necessary elements; and 5) defendants should not have obtained summary adjudication on the accounting cause of action on the basis of plaintiff’s insufficient discovery answers.
estate attorney tampa
More info…
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Probate, Trusts & Estates) In a dispute involving a trust, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where: 1) the late filing by plaintiff of an opposition statement did not violate the policies of Code Civ. Pro. section 437c (b)(2) or (b)(3) and thus was not sufficient grounds for granting summary judgment; 2) defendants did not address the amendment to one trust in their motion for summary judgment, which was a material allegation; 3) defendant’s motion for summary adjudication of the elder abuse cause of action was insufficient as he did not provide the necessary facts to support the motion; 4) trial court improperly granted summary adjudication with respect to the cause of action for a constructive trust as defendants did not establish all the necessary elements; and 5) defendants should not have obtained summary adjudication on the accounting cause of action on the basis of plaintiff’s insufficient discovery answers.
Byrum v. Landreth
(U.S. 5th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Constitutional Law, Government Law) In a First Amendment challenge to a law restricting the use of certain advertising language by unlicensed interior designers, the denial of a preliminary injunction is reversed, where it was the government’s burden to prove the constitutionality of the commercial speech at issue and the District Court held that the government failed to meet that burden.
St Petersburg Lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 4th Cir., Copyright, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the archiving of student papers on Defendant’s website, judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims is affirmed, where the archiving was transformative because its purpose was to prevent plagiarism by comparative use, but judgment for Plaintiff on Defendant’s counterclaims is reversed, where damages under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) can include the costs of repairing a violation of the CFAA.
TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving automated toll collection systems, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the sales of the toll collection systems installed by defendant were authorized by an earlier settlement agreement involving the plaintiff such that plaintiff’s patent rights were exhausted as to those systems; 2) the court did not err in excluding parol evidence of the parties’ intent at the time they entered into the settlement agreement as the settlement agreement is unambiguous, final, and exclusive; 3) plaintiff’s rights to the ’946 patent were exhausted by third party Mark IV’s authorized sales under an implied license to practice that patent by virtue of legal estoppel.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
tampa attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
April 26, 2009 12:20 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe