Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[05/15] Medtronic, Inc. v. White
In a contract dispute over ownership of a patent, a judgment resulting from a jury verdict in favor of defendant-doctor is reversed and remanded where both an agency jury instruction and a corroboration jury instruction were given in error, and each was prejudicial.

[05/14] E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C.
In a patent infringement case brought by DuPont, an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings where the district court: 1) abused its discretion in finding that a substantial question as to validity existed because of uncertainty regarding the priority date; and 2) did not reach the parties' remaining arguments as to validity and enforceability as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

[05/14] Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.
In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert.

[05/14] Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to computer networking systems and methods that provide shared memory systems and services, summary judgment for defendant-Oracle is affirmed where the district court correctly construed the disputed claim term "local" to mean a "computer device that is directly attached to a single computer's processor."

[05/14] Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[05/15] In re Marriage Cases
In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.

[05/15] Medtronic, Inc. v. White
In a contract dispute over ownership of a patent, a judgment resulting from a jury verdict in favor of defendant-doctor is reversed and remanded where both an agency jury instruction and a corroboration jury instruction were given in error, and each was prejudicial.

[05/14] Cruz v. State of Louisiana
Dismissal of state and federal claims of sexual discrimination against defendants is affirmed where dismissal of a federal claim due to plaintiff's failure to timely serve defendant prevented interruption of the prescriptive period in state courts against defendants from Louisiana.

[05/14] Springer v. Adkins
A decision granting respondent an increased annuity payment under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) is affirmed where: 1) retirement under 5 U.S.C. section 8451 does not incorporate the age and years of service requirements of section 8412 except where explicitly stated; and 2) the FERS disability annuity provisions require that a firefighter annuitant's benefits be the greater of that which is computed under sections 8452(a) and 8415(d).

[05/13] Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Bd.
A judgment finding an employer liable under Fair Employment and Housing Act for retaliation against a plaintiff-employee and awarding economic damages along with attorney's fees is affirmed where: 1) substantial evidence supported a finding that plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity, subjected to adverse employment action, and that a causal link existed between plaintiff's participation as a witness and the adverse employment action; and 2) consequently , the attorney's fees award was proper.

More...

Trademark

[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.

[04/29] Aktieselksabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.
In an action brought opposing a trademark application, summary judgment for applicant is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court may consider all relevant issues brought by either party regardless of whether they were brought before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB); 2) the district court incorrectly applied a heightened threshold for a complaint; 3) under Section 2(d) an intent-to-use applicant prevails over any opposer who began using a similar mark after the intent-to-use filing date; 4) opposer provided sufficient facts to establish constructive use of the trademark; 5) opposer's allegations of bad faith intent to use the trademark were sufficient to give notice of the claim; and 6) dismissal of opposer's allegation of common law fraudulent misrepresentation was proper.

[04/14] Nasalok Coating Corp. v. Nylok Corp.
In a cancellation proceeding involving parties engaged in business related to self-locking fasteners using nylon locking elements, summary judgment for appellee is affirmed where, because appellant's claim of trademark invalidity in its petition to cancel a mark's registration amounted to a collateral attack on a judgment in an earlier infringement suit, the rules of defendant preclusion were properly applied to bar appellant from asserting that claim.

[04/07] N. Am. Med. Corp. v. Axiom Worldwide, Inc.
In a case where the district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from engaging in certain alleged acts of false advertising and trademark infringement, order is vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court erred in presuming that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction merely because defendants' advertisements were literally false; and 2) it is unclear whether the district court was correct in holding that the nature of trademark infringement gives rise to a presumption of irreparable injury in light of eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).

[03/26] Intersport Inc. v. NCAA
In an action involving plaintiff's license from the March Madness Athletic Association to use the trademark term "March Madness" for various business purposes, declaratory judgment in favor plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the circuit court: 1) erroneously interpreted the term "videos" as including material transmitted to Sprint PCS cell phone customers on demand; 2) impermissibly rewrote the language of plaintiff's license agreement; and 3) had an insufficient factual basis to enter judgment on plaintiff's declaratory judgment claim.

More...

Patent

[05/15] Medtronic, Inc. v. White
In a contract dispute over ownership of a patent, a judgment resulting from a jury verdict in favor of defendant-doctor is reversed and remanded where both an agency jury instruction and a corroboration jury instruction were given in error, and each was prejudicial.

[05/14] E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C.
In a patent infringement case brought by DuPont, an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings where the district court: 1) abused its discretion in finding that a substantial question as to validity existed because of uncertainty regarding the priority date; and 2) did not reach the parties' remaining arguments as to validity and enforceability as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

[05/14] Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.
In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert.

[05/14] Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to computer networking systems and methods that provide shared memory systems and services, summary judgment for defendant-Oracle is affirmed where the district court correctly construed the disputed claim term "local" to mean a "computer device that is directly attached to a single computer's processor."

[05/13] Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
In a patent case involving a product used to treat proximal humeral bone fractures, dismissal of the action based on claim preclusion is reversed and remanded where defendant conceded that the accused devices were not essentially the same, and thus it failed to meet its burden to show that the infringement claim in the prior action was the same as the infringement claim in the present action.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[05/14] Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Antt
An order enjoining California and Florida from applying their licensing and regulatory requirements on a Texas-based real estate broker is reversed and dismissed where: 1) personal jurisdiction over California did not arise from merely having sent cease and desist orders to the Texas Real Estate Commission; and 2) personal jurisdiction over Florida did not arise from the state's contact with the Texas Attorney General's Office in order to obtain information on the plaintiff for a suit in Florida.

[05/14] Ericson v. Fed. Express Corp.
In a premises liability tort action arising from a third-party's assault and robbery incident in defendant's parking lot, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the third-party assault was not foreseeable under even the "regular reasonable forseeability" test; and 2) the negligent undertaking doctrine was inapplicable.

[05/14] Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.

[05/13] Garcia v. Brockway
An aggrieved person must bring a private civil action under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) for a failure to properly design and construct within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which concludes on the date that the last certificate of occupancy is issued. (Panel opinion adopted by the en banc court with amendments)

[05/13] N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica
In an action brought by a developer against the city of Pacifica involving a proposed condominium project, dismissal of developer's substantive due process claim is affirmed, but an order holding city liable for an equal protection violation is reversed and the resultant damages awards vacated where: 1) the developer was not entitled to judgment on an equal protection claim, as the city did not intentionally treat it differently from any other developer; and 2) a due process claim should not be resurrected because developer did not allege any irrational delay in the city's approval of its permits.

More...