Cases

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge GAJARSA. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by Circuit Judge PROST. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. Milton D. Goldenberg (“Goldenberg”) and Immunomedics, Inc. (collectively, “Im-munomedics”), appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment of nonin-fringement of United States Patent No. 4,460,559 (the “'559 patent”) in favor of Cytogen, Inc.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0016p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ KEVIN T. LAVERY, │ Plaintiff-Appellant,

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 94 {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Richard A. Levin, in his capacity as tax commissioner of the state of Ohio, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in favor of plaintiffs-appellees, DIRECTV, Inc. and EchoStar Satellite Corporation ("DIRECTV" and "EchoStar," or collectiv

MEMORANDUM OPINION PUBLIC VERSION RELEASED ON APRIL 7, 2014 STARK, U.S. District Judge: I. INTRODUCTION In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff. Masimo Corporation (“Masimo” or “Plaintiff’), asserts that Defendants, Philips Electronic North American Corporation and Philips Medizin Systeme Bob-lingen GMBH (collectively “Philips” or “Defendants”), inf

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘o

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical corr

771 F.Supp. 313 (1991) PACIFIC WESTERN RESIN COMPANY, a Washington corporation, Plaintiff, v. CONDUX PIPE SYSTEMS, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendant. Civ. No. 91-6097-JO. United States District Court, D. Oregon. August 1, 1991. Larry S. Gangnes, Craig D. Bachman, David A. Miller, Lane Powell Spears Lubersky, Portland, Or., for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LIFLAND, District Judge. Plaintiffs Pfizer, Inc., Warner-Lambert Co., and Godecke Aktiengesellschaft (collectively, “Warner-Lambert”) brought suit against Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,054,482, entitled “Lactam-Free Amino Acids” (“ ’482 patent”).1

44 F.Supp.2d 717 (1999) Stephen BARRETT, M.D., Plaintiff, v. The CATACOMBS PRESS, James R. Privitera, M.D., Alan Stang, M.A., Darlene Sherrell, and CDS Networks Inc., Defendants. No. Civ. 99-736. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. April 12, 1999. *718 *719

304 F.Supp.2d 726 (2004) LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC., Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL SECURITY INSTRUMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants No. CIV. AMD 01-3855. United States District Court, D. Maryland. February 19, 2004. *727 *728 *729

415 F.3d 130375 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 Edward H. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWH CORPORATION, Hopeman Brothers, INC., and Lofton Corporation, Defendants-Cross Appellants. 03-1269, -1286 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT July 12, 2005, DecidedAs Amended July 14, 2005.Cert. denied by AWH Corp. v. Phillips, (Feb. 21, 2006)Appealed from Philli

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1269, -1286 EDWARD H. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AWH CORPORATION, HOPEMAN BROTHERS, INC., and LOFTON CORPORATION, Defendants-Cross Appellants. Carl F. M

OAKES, Circuit Judge: This appeal, chock-full of incongruities and perplexities, involves the June 24, 1975, crash of Eastern Air Lines Flight 66 on its approach to John F. Kennedy Airport, a resulting $6.5 million verdict against Eastern and the United States, an apportionment of 60% of the damages against one of the impleaded defendants, a question of the application of the Warsaw Convention and Montreal Agreement, and a s

*259Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. We face here the questions whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to a civil-jury award of punitive or exemplary damages, and, if so, whether an award of $6 million was excessive in this particular case.1 This Court has never held, or even intimated, that the <

52 F.3d 967 63 USLW 2663, 34 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321 Herbert MARKMAN and Positek, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC. and Althon Enterprises, Inc.,Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-1049. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. April 5, 1995. William B. Mallin, Ecke

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge: This case presents difficult questions of interpretation of the Warsaw Convention. It also presents a difficult question concerning a Florida state law cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional injury; however, this court is bound by the state court’s resolution of this issue. The case also presents issues relating to preemption of the state law cause of action. Because we hold that t

482 F.Supp. 867 (1979) UNITED STATES of America v. Harold ROSENTHAL a/k/a Allyn Milton Karr, George Rawls a/k/a Howard Kenith Leigh, Jorge Luis Valdes, Oscar Rivera Nunez, Orlando Rengel, Sixto Granados Enriquez, Avoro Martin, Norman Downs, Howard "Sonny" Hawkins, Ned Ames, James Patrick Herman, Roger E. Beckman, Brian J. Brinker, James Sever, William D. "Bill" McCain, Leonard Bonnell Steele, Fredrick Francis Haussman, James Albert Costello, Henr

395 F.Supp.2d 140 (2005) In re GABAPENTIN PATENT LITIGATION Pfizer Inc., Warner-Lambert Co., and Godecke Aktiengesellschaft, Plaintiffs, v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd., Defendants. Nos. MDL NO. 13874(JCL), 00-2931(JCL), CIV.A.00-4168(JCL), CIV.A.00-4589(JCL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. August 25, 2005.

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

682 F.2d 406 Efstratios STRATIS, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., and United States of America,Defendants-Appellants.EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,v.UNITED STATES of America, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee,New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Third-PartyDefendant-Appellant,andThe Jamaica Hospital, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellee.