Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “FRANK v. 3M COMPANY”
Bhatia v. 3M Co.public domain
DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge *1089INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on a Partial Motion to Dismiss and Strike Plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") brought by Defendant 3M Company ("3M" or "Defendant") (Doc. No. 87). For the reasons set forth below, the Court gran
Hayden v. 3M Co.public domain
Judge Roland L. Belsome hln preparation for trial on this meso-thelioma case, the plaintiff served trial subpoenas on numerous defendant corporations for the in-court appearance of a corporate representative at trial. The defendant corporations filed motions to quash the subpoenas. The trial court granted the motions to quash as to the corporations that were not domiciled in Louisiana. The plaintiff filed an application for su
Glenn v. 3M Companypublic domain
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Rita Joyce Glenn, individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Thomas Harold Glenn, deceased, Respondent, v. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Individually and as Successor-In-Interest to Buffalo Pumps; Airgas USA, LLC; Aurora Pump; BW/IP Inc., a Subsidiary of Flowserve Corporation; CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation f/k/a Viacom, Inc., Success
3M Innovative Properties Co. v. GDC, Inc.public domain
*1118MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DONOVAN W. FRANK, District Judge. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on the issue of patent claim construction pursuant to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996). BACKGROUND This liti
Frank v. Walkerpublic domain
DECISION AND ORDER LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge The plaintiffs, a number of individuals who are eligible to vote in Wisconsin, filed this suit in 2011, alleging that Wisconsin’s law requiring them to present photo identification at the polls, 2011 Wis. Act 23 (“Act 23”), violates the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Following a trial on the claims alleged in this and a companion case,
3m Innovative Properties Company and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Avery Dennison Corporationpublic domain
350 F.3d 1365 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. No. 03-1203. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. Decided: December 2, 2003. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied January 20, 2004.
Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co.public domain
575 F.3d 1235 (2009) SOUTHERN GROUTS & MORTARS, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 3M COMPANY, a Foreign corporation, Defendant-Appellee. No. 08-15850. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. July 23, 2009. *1238 Gustavo Sardina, Frank Herrera, JanPaul Guzman, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt & Adler, Ft.
3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp.public domain
185 F.Supp.2d 1031 (2002) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Plaintiffs, v. AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV 01-1781 (DSD/FLN). United States District Court, D. Minnesota. February 15, 2002. *1032 *1033 *
3m Innovative Properties v. Tredegar Corporationpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY AND 3M COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TREDEGAR CORPORATION AND TREDEGAR FILM PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees. ______________________ 2012-1241 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for
Harold Stromberger v. 3m Companypublic domain
POSNER, Circuit Judge. This is a suit, primarily for fraud in violation of the common law of Illinois, that has been brought in federal court under the diversity jurisdiction. A count that charged a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634, was dismissed early on because the plaintiff had not filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Later the court granted s
Lisa S. Van Amburg, Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County in favor of defendants Frank J. Miceli, in his individual capacity and as trustee of the Frank Miceli Revocable Trust,. the unknown beneficiaries of said trust, Stephen Miceli, in his individual capacity
Jackson, Willie Frankpublic domain
^ ORIGINAL ^4ujfo,%X*t PRECEIVED IN COL'RT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUL 14 2015 /^/////^/%*sA &dj*jJy Ap;//^ijj/?s<3j£ Abel Acosfa, Cfark ^ FILED IN -uhT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS JUL H 2015 A/aJ£"/?-dao97'&<
361 F.Supp.2d 958 (2005) 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY and Dyneon LLC, Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants, v. DUPONT DOW ELASTOMERS LLC, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff. No. CIV. 03-3364MJDJGL. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. March 8, 2005. *959 *960
Jolly v. General Electric Companypublic domain
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Beverly Dale Jolly and Brenda Rice Jolly, Respondents, v. General Electric Company, et al., Defendants, Of whom Fisher Controls International LLC and Crosby Valve, LLC are the Appellants. Appellate Case No. 2017-002611 Appeal From Spartanburg County Jean Hoefer Toal, Acting Circuit Court Judge Opinion No. 5858 Heard November 2, 2020 – Filed September 1, 2021
IN RE: Appraisal of Panera Bread Companypublic domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE APPRAISAL OF PANERA ) BREAD COMPANY ) C.A. No. 2017-0593-MTZ ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Date Submitted: October 7, 2019 Date Decided: January 31, 2020 Samuel T. Hirzel, II, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, and Melissa N. Donimirski, HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware
RICH, Circuit Judge. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc. (JJO) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, Civil Action No. 4-86-359, holding JJO liable for infringement of claims 1-4 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 4,502,479, issued to Garwood et al. in 1985 (the Garwood patent); willful infri
141 T.C. No. 1 UNITED STATES TAX COURT JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.), AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (f.k.a. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY) AND SUBSIDIARIES, ET AL.,1 Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket Nos. 6404-09, 7083-10, Filed August 5, 2013. 7084-10.
JOHN W. PECK, Circuit Judge. This is the second appeal in this patent infringement action brought by plaintiff Frank Buzzelli against defendant Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (hereinafter “3M”). The first appeal resulted in the reversal of a summary judgment entered in favor of 3M on the grounds that the district court f
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2005-IA-01406-SCT ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY v. LONNIE ADAMS, JR., ET AL. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GLENN F. BECKHAM LONNIE D. BAILEY EDWARD BLACKMON, JR. FRANK JONES ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: WIL
LOKEN, Chief Judge. Enervations, Inc. commenced this action against Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. (3M) alleging breach of an Authorized Distributor Agreement (the Agreement) that granted Enervations the exclusive right to distribute 3M window film products in a designated territory. The district court 1 gra