Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[08/27] Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.

[08/25] Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
In a dispute over two patents for tobacco curing processes, judgment of unenforceability of both patents due to inequitable conduct and summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims due to indefiniteness are reversed and remanded where: 1) the evidence did not support findings of either deceptive intent or materiality with respect to the inequitable-conduct claims; and 2) a claim term construed by the district court clearly delineated the bounds of claim scope and was therefore not indefinite.

[08/21] Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc.
In a suit claiming infringement of a patent for an ink-jet printing method, summary judgment of invalidity is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to create an issue of fact on whether defendant's prior patent inherently anticipated certain claims in plaintiff's patent; and 2) other claims were properly invalidated as obvious in light of the anticipation finding.

[08/20] Koninklijke Philips Elecs., N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc.
In an action alleging that defendants had infringed plaintiff-Philips's registered trademark and had knowingly offered counterfeited Philips goods for sale in the United States, an appeal from an order imposing monetary sanctions on defendants for civil contempt is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

[08/20] In Re: Omeprazole Patent Litig.
In a multidistrict litigation against a number of generic drug manufacturers for infringement of plaintiffs' two patents covering formulations of omeprazole, the active ingredient in Prilosec, a drug designed to treat acid-related gastrointestinal disorders, judgments of infringement are affirmed where: 1) the infringement claim did not become moot upon expiration of the patents; 2) the record supported findings that defendants' respective formulations infringed the patents; 3) clinical studies conducted by plaintiff were experimental rather than public uses, but would not negate the public-use bar to patentability if the invention had been reduced to practice before the experimental use; 4) the record supported findings that the patented formulation was not ready for patenting until after the studies were completed; and 5) anticipation and obviousness defenses were properly rejected.

More...

Labor & Employment Law

[08/27] Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Petition for review of an NLRB order dismissing union's complaints against hotel employers for unilaterally terminating dues-checkoff before bargaining to agreement or impasse is granted where: 1) although the NLRB was responsive to a prior mandate from the circuit court that it adopt a new rule, it did not properly apply the new rule it adopted; and 2) contrary to the NLRB's ruling, the union did not clearly and unmistakably waive any right of employees to claim dues-checkoff after the agreements expired.

[08/27] Kozisek v. Couty of Seward
In an employment discrimination and civil rights case, summary judgment for defendants-county and county board chairman is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disability Act; 2) for purposes of a First Amendment claim, plaintiff's speech was not protected, and regardless, he failed to show a connection between his speech and his termination; and 3) a due process claim failed.

[08/26] Duncan v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision granting reconsideration is annulled where the WCAB erred in holding that a sanction can be imposed against the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund (UEBTF), if its "failure to comply with the award of attorney's fees resulted from willful or bad faith actions".

[08/26] Kreutzer v. City & County of San Francisco
Judgment ordering employer to reinstate a former exempt employee into a non-exempt position is reversed where: 1) a government employee hired into a position expressly classified as exempt from civil service is not entitled to the protections of the civil service system upon the employee's release from the position, even if a court finds that, based on the duties of the position, it should not have been classified as exempt; and 2) when a government employee is released from employment for reasons characterized only as non-disciplinary, and not otherwise publicly disclosed, the employee's liberty interest in reputation has not been infringed, and the employee is entitled to no relief.

[08/26] Carpenter v. Mohawk Industries, Inc.
In an employment matter, appeal of judgment for plaintiff-former employee is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and petition for writ of mandamus is denied where: 1) court declines to extend the "collateral order" doctrine established in past precedent to exercise court's jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal of a discovery order implicating the attorney-client privilege; 2) mandamus is appropriate only when there has been a clear usurpation of power or abuse of discretion; and 3) defendant-employer has not shown its right to the issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable.

More...

Trademark

[08/27] Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc.
In a case arising from a contract dispute involving a 1996 transaction between the parties, summary judgment for plaintiff on a counterclaim, finding that a provision at issue was unenforceable because it was merely an agreement to agree, is affirmed over claims that the district court violated the law-of-the-case doctrine and erred in granting summary judgment.

[08/20] Koninklijke Philips Elecs., N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc.
In an action alleging that defendants had infringed plaintiff-Philips's registered trademark and had knowingly offered counterfeited Philips goods for sale in the United States, an appeal from an order imposing monetary sanctions on defendants for civil contempt is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

[08/18] Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League
In an antitrust case alleging that the NFL's exclusive headwear licensing agreement with Reebok International violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to allow additional discovery was properly denied where plaintiff did not identify the evidence it sought to discover; 2) NFL teams are a "single entity" for purposes of licensing their intellectual property; and 3) as a single entity, the teams were free to license their intellectual property on an exclusive basis.

[08/05] E.T. Browne Drug Co. v. Cococare Prods., Inc.
In a trademark dispute between manufacturers of beauty and personal-care products over the allegedly trademarked phrase "Cocoa Butter Formula," summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the phrase was generic or descriptive; but 2) plaintiff did not produce evidence to show that the phrase had acquired secondary meaning sufficient to create a protectable trademark interest.

[07/30] Singh v. Morris
In a state action arising out of alleged legal malpractice in a federal trademark suit, summary judgment for defendant-attorney is reversed and the case is dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction where, despite the requirement for plaintiff to prove he would have prevailed on the underlying federal trademark case, the malpractice claim did not "arise under" federal law since the federal issue was not substantial, and federal jurisdiction would have considerably intruded on state authority.

More...

Patent

[08/25] Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
In a dispute over two patents for tobacco curing processes, judgment of unenforceability of both patents due to inequitable conduct and summary judgment of invalidity of all asserted claims due to indefiniteness are reversed and remanded where: 1) the evidence did not support findings of either deceptive intent or materiality with respect to the inequitable-conduct claims; and 2) a claim term construed by the district court clearly delineated the bounds of claim scope and was therefore not indefinite.

[08/21] Leggett & Platt, Inc. v. VUTEk, Inc.
In a suit claiming infringement of a patent for an ink-jet printing method, summary judgment of invalidity is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not produce evidence to create an issue of fact on whether defendant's prior patent inherently anticipated certain claims in plaintiff's patent; and 2) other claims were properly invalidated as obvious in light of the anticipation finding.

[08/20] In Re: Omeprazole Patent Litig.
In a multidistrict litigation against a number of generic drug manufacturers for infringement of plaintiffs' two patents covering formulations of omeprazole, the active ingredient in Prilosec, a drug designed to treat acid-related gastrointestinal disorders, judgments of infringement are affirmed where: 1) the infringement claim did not become moot upon expiration of the patents; 2) the record supported findings that defendants' respective formulations infringed the patents; 3) clinical studies conducted by plaintiff were experimental rather than public uses, but would not negate the public-use bar to patentability if the invention had been reduced to practice before the experimental use; 4) the record supported findings that the patented formulation was not ready for patenting until after the studies were completed; and 5) anticipation and obviousness defenses were properly rejected.

[08/19] Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas
A determination by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) of which applications constitute "original applications" for which inter partes reexamination is available under the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) is affirmed where: 1) the PTO's determination was entitled to Chevron deference; and 2) in the absence of clear Congressional intent as to the meaning of "original application," the PTO's interpretation of the term was a reasonable construction.

[08/19] DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc.
In a suit alleging infringement of two patents for storing and displaying footwear for customer self-service, summary judgment of non-infringement of one patent and no liability for damages for past infringement of both patents is vacated and remanded where: 1) the finding of non-infringement was based on incorrect construction of claims; and 2) patent infringement is a strict liability offense, and an infringer's reasonable steps and good faith efforts to cease infringing activity are insufficient to avoid damages.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[08/27] Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.
In a suit accusing defendant of filing a claim attempting to collect a pre-petition debt in violation of an automatic stay in plaintiffs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy, an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) unpaid escrow payments that accumulate pre-petition in the year that a bankruptcy petition is filed, and which the creditor had a right to collect under the loan documents, constitute a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code; but 2) the filing of a proof of claim including the amounts of these payments does not by itself violate an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.

[08/27] Byrd v. Dressel
In an action brought by a group of homeowners and community organizations seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a city, employees, and developers who remodel and convert private homes into student residences, a judgment against plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) case precedent does not categorically preclude due process challenges to impermissible governmental action that deprives a person of real property; 2) however, under ordinary Due Process Clause jurisprudence, plaintiff failed to state a claim, notwithstanding it's understandable concerns about the aesthetics and ambiance of the neighborhood; and 3) claims under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and defendant-city's municipal code also failed.

[08/27] 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Co.
In a case involving the enforceability of a "gold clause" contained in a 1912 lease agreement, which required payment of rents to be in gold coins, a judgment against plaintiff-owner who tried to enforce the clause is reversed and remanded where: 1) contrary to the ruling below, the clause is enforceable; and 2) a remand was necessary for the district court to interpret the clause, to determine the obligation it imposes on the lessee, and to address any other defenses in the first instance, including lessee's estoppel-by-deed and waiver defenses.

[08/26] Cannon v. Gates
In an action claiming violations of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, dismissal of the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where the district court properly applied the jurisdiction-stripping provision at 42 U.S.C. section 9613(h) because plaintiffs' suit constitutes a challenge to the government's selected removal action.

[08/26] Brady v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc.
In a suit brought against one company and another which plaintiff contended was its alter ego for payment on certain bonds issued by defendant, dismissal of the claims is reversed where: 1) plaintiff acquired a right to sue on the Stated Maturity of his bond and that remedy was not time barred; and 2) furthermore, plaintiff's claims are not barred by res judicata.

More...