Cases

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 23-1616 ___________________________ Federal Trade Commission lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. American Screening, LLC, a Louisiana limited liability company; Ron Kilgarlin, Jr.,

LEVAL, Circuit Judge: This is an interlocutory appeal on certified questions from rulings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, /.). interpreting the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (“DMCA”). The DMCA establishes a safe harbor in § 512(c), which gives qualifying Internet service p

Digitally signed by Reporter of Decisions Reason: I attest to Illinois Official Reports the accuracy and

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL FELIX MORAN, No. 12-57246 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:12-cv-05808- SVW-AGR THE SCREENING PROS, LLC, a California corporation, ORDER AND

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. In this patent case, Spread Spectrum Screening LLC (“S3”) filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois against Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and four of Kodak’s customers — Continental Web Press, Inc., Graphic Partners, Inc., Genesis Press, Inc., and Johns-Byrne Company (collectively, “the Kodak Customers”) — alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,689,623 (“the '623 Patent”). On September 1,

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EXPERIENCE HENDRIX L.L.C., a Nos. 11-35858 Washington Limited Liability 11-35872 Company, and AUTHENTIC HENDRIX L.L.C., a Washington D.C. No. Limited Liability Company, 2:09-CV-00285- Plaintiffs-Appellants/ TSZ Cross-Appellees, OPINION v. HENDRIXLICENSING.COM

EGERTON, J. *630*849Authors write books. Filmmakers make films. Playwrights craft plays. And television writers, directors, and producers create television *850show

657 F.3d 1349 (2011) SPREAD SPECTRUM SCREENING LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, Continental Web Press, Inc., Graphic Partners, Inc., Johns-Byrne Company, and Genesis Press, Inc., Defendants-Appellees. No. 2011-1019. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 26, 2011. *1350 Chad Ennis, F & B

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL FELIX MORAN, No. 12-57246 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:12-cv-05808- SVW-AGR THE SCREENING PROS, LLC, a California corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of - ) ) U.S. Pan American Solutions, LLC ) ASBCA No. 62629 ) Under Contract No. W911S2-19-P-2528 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr. Jorge DelPino President APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

109 F.Supp.2d 724 (2000) NEOGEN CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff, v. NEO GEN SCREENING, INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Defendant. No. 5:00-CV-37. United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division. August 21, 2000. *725 Mark R. Fox, Fraser, Trebilcock, Davis & Foster, PC, Lansing, MI, for Neogen C

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 24, 2024 In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-24-00637-CV THOLONAUS DARRELL POMIER, Appellant V. DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY; BRANDSAFWAY LLC; ALL AMERICAN SCREEN, LLC; MARCELO INVESTMENTS, INC. (DISA); AND UNIVERSITY MRO. LLC, Appellees On Appeal from the 239th Distric

OPINION O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: We must decide whether a service that captures copyrighted works broadcast over the air, and then retransmits them to paying subscribers over the-Internet without the consent of the copyright holders, is a “cable system” eligible for a compulsory license under the Copyright Act. I

ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION WILLIAM ALSUP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE INTRODUCTION In.this putative class action involving the Fair Credit Reporting Act, plaintiff moves to certify two classes under Rule 23(b)(3) seeking statutory penalties for willful violations. Defendant moves for summary judgment. For the reasons stated herein, ■

Notice: This opinion is subject to correction before publication in the PACIFIC REPORTER. Readers are requested to bring errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts, 303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, phone (907) 264-0608, fax (907) 264-0878, email corrections@akcourts.gov. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA BAXTER SENIOR LIVING, LLC, ) ) Supreme Court No. S-18541

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EXPERIENCE HENDRIX L.L.C., a Nos. 11-35858 Washington Limited Liability 11-35872 Company, and AUTHENTIC HENDRIX L.L.C., a Washington D.C. No. Limited Liability Company, 2:09-CV-00285- Plaintiffs-Appellants/ TSZ Cross-Appellees, ORDER AND v. A

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. American Tubular Products, LLC (“ATP”) and Jiangsu Chengde Steel Tube Share Co., Ltd. (“Chengde”) (collectively, “the Appellants”) appeal from the decisions of the United States Court of International Trade (“the Trade Court”) affirming the Department of Commerce’s (“Commerce”) antidumping duty calculations in the first administrative review of an antidump

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REED O’CONNOR, District Judge. Before the Court are Defendant The American Insurance Company’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Exclude Testimony of Howard Altschule (ECF No. 40), filed August 15, 2014; Motion to Exclude Testimony of Sean Peatrowsky (ECF No. 43), filed August 15, 2014; Motion to Exclude Testimony of Tom Irmiter (ECF No. 46), filed August 15, 2014; and Plaintiff Arlingt

FISHER, Circuit Judge: ORDER The opinion filed June 10, 2014, and reported at 752 F.3d 853 (9th Cir.2014), is AMENDED. An amended opinion is filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Clifton has voted to deny the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judges Goodwin and Fisher so recommend.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MERCO, INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN PRESTON BAILEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On this day, the above-styled civil action came before this Court upon consideration of Merco Ine.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. 92], filed February 16, 2016. Defendant filed its response [Doc. *697