Cases

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This Cause having been heard and considered, it is *900Ordered and Adjudged: AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. On August 6, 2013, the Court filed under seal an order pertaining to the disgorgement of Manley Toys, Ltd.’s profits and provided the parties with an oppor*1013tunity to propose redactions to that Order. Aviva indicated that it does not believe any redactions are necessary; Manley proposed redaction of th

*807ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge. Plaintiff Aviva Sports, Inc. (Aviva) brought this action against Defendants Fingerhut Direct Marketing, Inc. (Finger-hut), Menard, Inc. (Menard), Kmart Corporation (Kmart), WalMart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart), and Manley Toys, Ltd. (Manley), alleging patent infringement and false advertising in violation of the

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE I. INTRODUCTION On January 5, 2016, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on Plaintiff LTJ Enterprises, Inc.’s (“LTJ”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 61], Defendant Custom Marketing Co., LLC’s (“CMC”) Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 75], CMC’s Motion to Exclude E

*54 MEMORANDUM OPINION ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, United States District Judge Plaintiff Watkins, which produces black pepper, alleges that its largest competitor, *55 defendant McCormick, deceptively “slack-f

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge This matter is before the Court on Defendants Facebook, Inc. and Instagram, LLC’s motion for leave to file under seal documents in support of Defendants’ forthcoming motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. (Dkt. 74.) For the reasons addressed herein, the Court denies

ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: *265In September 2017, the Court held a bench trial between two Alzheimer's charities-Counterclaim Plaintiff Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association (hereafter, "Alzheimer's Association" or the "Association" or "Counterclaim Plaintiff") and Counterclaim Defendant Alzheimer's Foundation of America

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Summary Judgment brought by Plaintiff Metro Sales, Inc. (“MSI”). (Doc. No. 59.) Also before the Court is MSI’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. (Doc. No. 62.) Defendants Core Consulting Group, LLC (“Core”) and Rodger Mohagen (“Mohagen”) (collec

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ANN D. MONTGOMERY, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On February 15, 2013, the undersigned United States District Judge heard oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment and on the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ summary judgment motion is denied. Plaintiffs summary judgment motio

Re Document Nos.: 114, 116, 119, 128 MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting In Part and Denying In Part Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike; and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine RUDOLPH CONTRERAS,

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 14-924L (Filed: March 10, 2023) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** YURIY PRAKHIN, * * Plaintiff, * * v. *

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM JEFFREY J. KEYES, United States Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Target Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 198.) The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs motion on July 30, 2013. Based on the parties’ submissions and arguments, together with all pleadings, records, and files herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: Before the Court is a motion by Defendants Shire LLC, Shire Development LLC, Shire PLC1 and Haug Partners LLP ("Haug Partners") (collectively, the "Defendants") for attorneys' fees to be awarded in the amount of $ 250,000. (ECF No. 80.) For the reasons set forth below, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

ENTRY ON MOTION TO EXCLUDE WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, District' Judge. This cause comes before the Court on Mirowski’s Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of W. Todd Schoettelkotte (Dkt. No. 213). The motion is fully briefed, and the Court, being duly advised, rules as follows on the motion. I. STANDARD Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1077 ___________________________ Select Comfort Corporation; Select Comfort SC Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants v. John Baxter; Dires, LLC, doing business as Personal Touch Beds and Personal Comfo

ORDER DAVID S. DOTY, District Judge. This matter is before the court upon the motion for summary judgment by defendant Werner Enterprises (Werner) and the motions to exclude expert testimony by Werner and by plaintiff Soo Line Railroad Company, doing business as Canadian Pacific (Canadian Pacific). Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the court gr

State of Maryland v. Kirk Matthews, No. 15, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Biran, J. EXPERT WITNESSES – ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY – MARYLAND RULES 5-702 AND 5-403 – REVIEW FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony of the State’s photogrammetry expert witness. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion to exclude the expert testimony, the expert opined that a person shown carrying a shotgun in an image capt

State of Maryland v. Kirk Matthews, No. 15, September Term, 2021. Opinion by Biran, J. EXPERT WITNESSES – ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY – MARYLAND RULES 5-702 AND 5-403 – REVIEW FOR ABUSE OF DISCRETION The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting testimony of the State’s photogrammetry expert witness. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion to exclude the expert testimony, the expert opined that a person shown carrying a shotgun in an image capt