More info…
(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.
Bowling Green
&
Warren Cty. Airport v. Martin Land Dev. Co.
(U.S. 6th Cir., Civil Procedure, Property Law & Real Estate, Transportation) In a declaratory judgment action seeking recognition of a leasehold interest in certain areas of an airport, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed, where 49 U.S.C. section 40103 does not imply a private right of action.
Hettinga v. US
(U.S. D.C. Cir., Agriculture, Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law) In an action challenging the constitutionality of certain contribution requirements for milk handlers, the dismissal of the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is reversed, where the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act’s exhaustion requirement does not apply to challenges to the act itself.
US v. Navajo Nation
(U.S.S.C., Civil Procedure, Government Law, Indian Law, Oil & Gas Law) In an action by an Indian tribe against the U.S. resulting from the Secretary of the Interior’s failure to promptly approve a coal royalty rate, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where Plaintiff’s claim for compensation fails because none of the sources of law cited by the Court of Appeals and relied upon by Plaintiff provides any more sound a basis for its lawsuit than those previously discussed by the Court.
accident attorney tampa
More info…
(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.
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.
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.
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.
tampa lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law) In a Due Process challenge to changes in a county’s retirement system, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where res judicata barred Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs shared an identical interest with plaintiffs in previously-filed state court actions asserting the same claims.
tampa lawyer
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.
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.
Green v. Jefferson Cty. Comm.
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law) In a Due Process challenge to changes in a county’s retirement system, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed, where res judicata barred Plaintiffs’ claims because Plaintiffs shared an identical interest with plaintiffs in previously-filed state court actions asserting the same claims.
IDT Corp. v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter
&
Co.
(N.Y., Civil Procedure, Communications Law, Contracts, Injury And Tort Law) In an action for tortious interference with contract, the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint is reversed, where Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations, with the exception of Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim, which was precluded by the parties’ written agreement.
aviation accident lawyer
External articles | admin | 
April 7, 2009 9:10 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe