Cases

Case: 24-10749 Document: 93-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED November 21, 2025

RULING ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION Janet Bond Arterton, U.S.D.J, Plaintiffs Joseph Strauch, Timothy Colby, Charles Turner, and Vernon Carre, current and former System Administrators (“SAs”) at Defendant Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”), bring this overtime misclassification action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the state laws of California, Connecticut, and North Carol

739 F.Supp.2d 1063 (2010) SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT INTEGRATION, LLC, Plaintiff, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, Defendant. No. 09-CV-4008. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 13, 2010. *1067 Caesar A. Tabet, Jon Jeffrey Patton, Reema Kapur, Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaint

MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge Relator Tien H. Tran (“Relator” or “Tran”) brings this action under the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-33 (2013), seeking to challenge the contracting practices of Defendant Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) with respect to a particular government contract.

457 F.Supp.2d 571 (2006) Thomas L. MOFFETT, II, et al., Plaintiff's, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Civil No. PJM # 05-1547. United States District Court, D. Maryland. September 29, 2006. *572 Donald W. Marcari, Marcari Russotto and Spencer Chesapeake, VA, Frank D. Lawrence, III, Marcari Russotto and Spence

MEMORANDUM DuBois, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This case involves claims of patent infringement between Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and related entities (collectively “Comcast”), and Sprint Communications Company, L.P., and related entities (collectively “Sprint”). After withdrawal of several claims of infringement, what remained in the case were Comcast’s claim for infringem

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT JOHN R. TUNHEIM, District Judge. Canine Exercise-Induced Collapse causes dogs to lose control of their legs after strenuous exercise. Defendant Canine EIC Genetics (“Canine EIC”) discovered a genetic mutation in dogs that is tied to EIC. Canine EIC subsequently secured a patent (“the '297 Patent”) that identifies this mu

(2008) LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 2:07cv589. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division. December 10, 2008. OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court for construction of disputed terms found in claims of three

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PICKY PAM AT THE BEACH, LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION Jill N. Parrish, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION Before the court is Defendant Picky Pam at the Beach, LLC’s (“Picky Pam”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal *1339Jurisdiction and Impro

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge: Defendants Compaq Computer Corp. and Seagate Technology LLC bring this motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff Convolve, Inc.’s Tenth- — -and only remaining — Claim for Relief. (Mot. for Summ. J. (“MSJ”), ECF No. 1029.) Plaintiffs Tenth Claim for Relief seeks damages a

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. The world has come a long way; this is a patent case about robots. InToueh Tech *1332 nologies, Inc. d/b/a InTouch Health (“In-Touch”) and VGo Communications, Inc. (“VGo”) both manufacture remote telepresence robot systems. In 2012, InTouch filed a First Amended Complaint

MemoRandum Opinion ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE: Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. (“ELS”), a New York corporation, brought this suit against Adipogen Corp., Adipogen International, Inc., Bioaxxess, Inc., Dr. Georges Chap-puis, Ms. Tamara Sales, Ms. Silvia Dettwiler, and Does 1 through 50.1 (D.I.l). ELS is a publicly traded company that acquired Axxora Life Sciences, Inc., and its five wholly o

Case: 22-1939 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1939 ______________________ Appeal

329 F.Supp.2d 789 (2004) ACCOUNTING OUTSOURCING, LLC, et al., Plaintiff, United States of America, Intervenor State of Louisiana, Intervenor v. VERIZON WIRELESS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS, L.P. No. CIV.A. 03-161-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-169-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-173-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-198-D-M3, CIV.A. 03 — 208-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-358-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-406-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-421-D-M3, CIV.A. 03-468-D-M3. United States Distri

Case: 22-1939 Document: 56 Page: 1 Filed: 02/16/2024 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ PROMPTU SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. COMCAST CORPORATION, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2022-1939 ______________________ Appeal

735 F.Supp.2d 256 (2010) Omid E. KIA v. IMAGING SCIENCES INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al. Civil Action No. 08-5611. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. August 20, 2010. *261 Mark B. Angres, Neil F. Greenblum, Greenblum & Bernstein PLC, Reston, VA, Rudolph Garcia, Buchanan Ingersoll Rooney, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for

*263OPINION OF THE COURT FISHER, Circuit Judge. This case arises from an antitrust action brought by ZF Meritor, LLC (“ZF Meritor”) and Meritor Transmission Corporation (“Meritor”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) against Eaton Corporation (“Eaton”) for allegedly anticompetitive practices in the heavy-duty truck transmissions market. The practices at issu

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is currently before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung” or “Defendants”). ECF No. 134. The motion has been fully briefed and is therefore ripe for decision. After exa

OPINION AND ORDER MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge. This matter is before the Court following a Markman hearing, conducted for the purpose of construing nine disputed claim terms in the patents-in-suit. After careful consideration of the briefs submitted by the parties and the arguments advanced at the Markman hearing, the Court issues the following Opinion and Order detailing th

OPINION ALLEGRA, Judge: This government contract case is before the court following a trial in Washington, D.C. Spectrum Sciences and Software, Inc. (Spectrum), a munitions assembly systems manufacturer, entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the United States. That agreement was designed to facilitate the sharing of information between the parties concerning improvements