Cases

United States Tax Court 160 T.C. No. 3 3M COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 5816-13. Filed February 9, 2023. ————— P is the common parent company of the P consolidated group. As

CONSOLIDATED DECISION Before this Court are two motions to dismiss pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The Plaintiffs in these matters object to the motions and request guidance from this Court as to the application of Rhode Island Supreme Court opinionKedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171 (R.I. 2008), to ongoing asbestos litigation. Due to simil

R. Brooke Jackson, United States District Judge Defendants Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard and 3M move to dismiss plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, arguing that Colorado's appellate courts have not recognized such a cause of action. Tyco and Chemguard alternatively request that the issue be certified to the Colorado Supreme Court. Several other defendants ask to join one or both of the motions to dismiss. I decline to certify the

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 01-1970 ___________ Edward N. Hughes and * Dorothy K. Hughes, * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States vs. * Dis

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. This ease arises out of an agreement between TAS Distributing Company, Inc. (“TAS”) and Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (“Cummins”). In that agreement, TAS granted Cummins a co-exclusive license to use its idle-eontrol technology for heavy-duty truck engines. The agreements required Cummins to “make all reasonable efforts to market and sell” the licensed prod

FiLED IN 5TH COURT OF APPEALS I5 fPR 2g PH g: gO CAUSE NO. QS-14-O151O-CV LISA &‘STZ. CIR< IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS TRENTS. GRIFFIN Appellant, V. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY Appellee. On appeal from the

193 F.3d 992 (8th Cir. 1999) Mary D. Austin, Appellant,v.Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company; Jerry Jones, Appellees. No. 98-2670 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Submitted: July 30, 1999Filed: September 29, 1999 Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge. Donald E. Diez appeals from the summary judgment entered against him in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim against Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., known as 3M. The district court 1 held that Diez had not filed an administrative charge with the Minnesota Department of Hu

130 F.3d 1305 45 U.S.P.Q.2d 1146 MINNESOTA MINING & MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Appellant,v.RAUH RUBBER, INC.; Gaia Enterprises, Inc.; James T. Rauh;and James Thomas, Appellees.Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Appellee,v.Rauh Rubber, Inc.; Gaia Enterprises, Inc.; and James T.Rauh, Appellants. Nos. 97-1018MN, 97-1019MN. United St

GIBSON, Chief Judge. The Government appeals 1 from a judgment of the District Court 2 dismissing a three-count indictment charging Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M) and two of its principal officers, Bert S. Cross and Irwin R. Hansen, with violating v

685 N.W.2d 627 (2004) P.D.S.I. (3M Midwest Drivers) and Travelers Insurance Company, Appellants, v. Carolyn PETERSON, Surviving Spouse of Wayne Peterson, Appellee. No. 03-0260. Supreme Court of Iowa. August 11, 2004. *628 William D. Scherle and Aaron T. Oliver of Hansen, McClintock & Riley, Des Moines, for appellants.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AQUA PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant v. JOSEPH MATAL, PERFORMING THE FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________ 2015-1177 _______________

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SUPREMA, INC., MENTALIX INCORPORATED, Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee CROSS MATCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Intervenor ______________________ 2012-1170 ______________________ Appeal from the United State

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Appellant v. SAP AMERICA, INC., SAP AG, Appellees UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Intervenor ______________________ 2014-1194

PER CURIAM. This case was returned to us by the United States Supreme Court, noting “the possibility that [we] erred by too narrowly circumscribing the scope of § 271(a)” and suggesting that we “will have the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question.... ” Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2111, 2119, 2120, 189 L.Ed.2d 52 (2014). We hereby avail ourselves of that opportunity.</

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J. ¶ 82. {concurring in part and dissenting in part). Because I conclude that this court should extend the discovery rule to actions brought to enforce Wisconsin's Solid Waste Law, I respectfully dissent. ¶ 83. In 1970, Chrysler Corporation knowingly violated the State’s law with respect to disposal of

LINN, Circuit Judge. This case first came to this court after, inter alia, a jury verdict finding Akamai’s U.S. Pat. No. 6,108,703 (“'703 patent”) not invalid and directly infringed by Limelight, followed by the entry of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) overturning the jury’s infringement verdict on the basis of divided infringement. Akamai Te

LOKEN, Circuit Judge. This is a class action filed in November 2017 by former Minnesota employees of Honeywell International Inc. who retired before age 65 during the terms of Honeywell's 2007 and 2010 collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) with Local 1145 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Plaintiffs alleged that Honeywell's announced plan to terminate early retiree health

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 24-1603 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. John Nock lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ___________________________ No. 24-1713 ___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff -

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLAG SCA PERSONAL CARE, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. FIRST QUALITY BABY PRODUCTS, LLC, FIRST QUALITY HYGIENIC, INC., FIRST QUALITY PRODUCTS, INC. AND FIRST QUALITY RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 20