Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[12/30] Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
District court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining defendant from selling its product after jury found willful infringement of plaintiff's valid patent. The court correctly applied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief, finding that: 1) plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury; 2) remedies at law were inadequate; 3) balance of hardships warranted issuance of injunctive relief; and 4) the public interest was not harmed by issuance of the permanent injunction, despite defendant's assertion that its infringing product was safer than plaintiff's product.
[12/29] In re TS Tech USA Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies, petition for writ of mandamus to vacate decision denying petitioner's motion to transfer venue and to direct district court to transfer case to another state is granted where: 1) petitioner met its difficult burden of establishing that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer of venue to the Southern District of Ohio; and 2) mandamus relief was appropriate.
[12/24] Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd.
In a patent infringement action, grant of plaintiff's motion judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) finding the patent was not invalid is reversed where: 1) the district court's denial of a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of witness, not skilled in the pertinent art, was an abuse of discretion; and 2) as a matter of law, claim 1 of the patent was invalid for obviousness.
More...
Corporation & Enterprise Law
[01/06] In Re: Smart World Techs., LLC
In the bankruptcy context, pre-approval of a fee agreement under 11 U.S.C. section 328(a) depends on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the professional's application, or the court's order, referenced section 328(a), and whether the court evaluated the propriety of the fee arrangement before granting final, and not merely preliminary, approval. In the circumstances of this case, the circuit court rules that: 1) the bankruptcy court's Retention Order was a pre-approval within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 328(a); and 2) no subsequent developments warranted modifying the terms of appellee-firm's retention.
[01/05] Episcopal Church Cases
In a property dispute arising after a parish disaffiliated itself from the Episcopal Church after the national church ordained an openly gay man as a bishop, a court of appeals decision reversing a ruling in favor of parish defendants is affirmed where: 1) the action was not subject to a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP); and 2) on the merits and applying a "neutral principles of law" approach, the higher church authorities and not the parish defendants own the disputed property.
[12/29] People v. Roscoe
Following judgment finding defendants jointly and severally liable for penalties pursuant to laws governing underground storage of hazardous substances, judgment against defendant is affirmed where the responsible corporate officer doctrine applies to Health and Safety Code section 25299(a)(6) of the tank laws and thus subjects to liability as an "operator" a corporate officer who had "a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws", even where the corporation itself was also found to be the operator.
More...
Immigration Law
[12/31] Singh v. US Attorney Gen.
Petitioner was properly deemed deportable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony (burglary) for which a sentence of at least one year was imposed. A conviction in adult court is a conviction for immigration purposes, no matter how old the alien was at the time of the offense.
[12/18] Ingmantoro v. Mukasey
Asylum was properly denied where Petitioner failed to show either that she had suffered past persecution because of her ethnicity and religion, or would suffer future persecution if she returned to Indonesia.
[12/16] Potdar v. Mukasey
Alien was entitled to a continuance of removal proceedings so that he would not be exported while awaiting the decision on his application for adjustment of immigration status, and circuit court had jurisdiction to review the BIA's refusal to grant said continuance.
More...
|
