Cases

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge GREGORY wrote the opinion, in which Judge AGEE and Judge DIAZ joined. GREGORY, Circuit Judge: On August 15, 2013, a jury awarded Donna Cisson $250,000 in compensatory damages on a design defect and failure to warn claim against C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”), and awarded an additional $1,750,000 in punitive damages. The puniti

Affirmed by published opinion. Senior Judge PHILLIPS wrote the opinion, in which Judge HAMILTON and Judge WILLIAMS joined. OPINION PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. This is an appeal by several related companies (collectively “Cook”) challenging a ruling *251

709 F.Supp.2d 773 (2010) AQUA-LUNG AMERICA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN UNDERWATER PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a Oceanic, a California Corporation; and Two Forty Deuce Corporation, a Colorado Corporation, Defendants. No. C 07-02346 RS. United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. April 28, 2010. *77

CORTIÑAS, J. The City of Aventura (the “City”) seeks review of the trial court’s ruling that section 48-26 of the City’s Code of Ordinances, allowing the use of image capture technologies for monitoring and enforcing laws relating to traffic control signals, is invalid and unenforceable. We reverse. The City is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, and loca

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-2041 SAUL HILLEL BENJAMIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NICHOLAS SPARKS; EPIPHANY SCHOOL OF GLOBAL STUDIES; NICHOLAS SPARKS FOUNDATION, Defendants - Appellees, and MISSY BLACKERBY; TRACY LORENTZEN; KEN GRAY,

PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-2100 KEITH WARD, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. AUTOZONERS, LLC, Defendant – Appellant. ------------------------------ EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Amicus Supporting Appellee.

648 F.Supp.2d 822 (2009) RETRACTABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. OCCUPATIONAL & MEDICAL INNOVATIONS, LTD., Defendant. Case No. 6:08 CV 120. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. August 10, 2009. *823 Roy William Hardin, George E. Bowles, Mark Richard Backofen, Monty Lee Ross, Stephen David Wilson, Lo

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ASHMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiffs, Lisa Ellis, Marcia English, Yvonne Mason and Derrick Denson (collectively referred to as “Ellis” or “Plaintiffs”), filed a putative class action suit alleging that the defendants, Elgin Riverboat Resort d/b/a Grand Victoria Riverboat, Nevada Landing Partnership, and RBG,

478 F.Supp.2d 689 (2007) MARS, INCORPORATED, et als., Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants, v. COIN ACCEPTORS, INC., Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. Civil Action No. 90-49 (JCL). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. March 21, 2007. *690 *691 *692</

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0223p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ TAMMY M. BRAWNER, │ Plaintiff-Appellant, │

754 F.Supp.2d 1208 (2010) In re TOYOTA MOTOR CORP. UNINTENDED ACCELERATION MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This document relates to: All personal liability/wrong death cases. Case No. 8:10ML 02151 JVS (FMOx). United States District Court, C.D. California. December 9, 2010. *1211 Andrea Bierstein, Clinton

MEMORANDUM ALETA A. TRAUGER, District Judge. Defendant Tennessee CVS Pharmacy, LLC (“CVS”) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 19), to which plaintiff Michael Walls filed a Response in opposition (Docket No. 27), and CVS filed a Reply (Docket No. 40). For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be denied. BACKGROUND I. Proc

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge. This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,838,906 (the “'906 Patent”) and 7,599,985 (the “'985 Patent”). The Court further DENIES Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (Docket No. 568). BACKGROUND Patents-In-Suit

87 F.Supp.2d 1222 (2000) Harold T. PEHR, Plaintiff, v. RUBBERMAID, INC., Defendant. No. 99-2089-JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. March 8, 2000. *1223 Michael Elbein, Kent R. Erickson, Litman, Kraai & Brown, L.L.C., Kansas City, MO, Douglas M. Weems, Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, MO, Mark M. Gros

14 S.W.3d 512 (2000) 341 Ark. 105 FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF ARKANSAS, INC., and Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company v. Gaylon FOOTE and Tammy Foote. No. 99-1365. Supreme Court of Arkansas. April 20, 2000. *515 Hardin, Jesson & Terry, by: Rex M. Terry, J. Rodney Mills, and Kirk

994 F.Supp. 1050 (1998) Dorothy WESTIN, Plaintiff, v. MERCY MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., an Iowa Corporation, d/b/a Marian Medical Services, Inc., and Mercy Health Services, a Michigan Corporation, f/k/a Sisters of Mercy Health Corporation d/b/a Marian Health Center, Defendants. No. C 97-4051-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. February 12, 1998.

BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Ballard Medical Products owns U.S. Patent Nos. 4,569,344 (“the '344 patent”) and 4,696,296 (“the '296 patent”), which are drawn to ventilating and aspirating tracheobronchial catheters. Ballard sued Sorenson Critical Care, Inc., and Allegiance Healthcare Corp. (collectively “Sor-enson”) for infringement of multiple claims of the '344 and '296 patents. On s

935 F.Supp. 55 (1996) THERMALLOY INCORPORATED v. AAVID ENGINEERING, INC. Civil No. 93-16-JD. United States District Court, D. New Hampshire. March 15, 1996. *56 *57 Charles A. Szypszak, Orr & Reno, PA, Concord, NH, Jack Alton Kanz, Harris, Tucker & Hardin, Dallas, TX, for Thermalloy, I

50 F.Supp.2d 367 (1999) HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE INC. and Syntex (U.S.A.) Inc., Plaintiffs, v. GENPHARM INC., Defendant. No. CIV. 98-1124(WHW). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. June 8, 1999. *368 *369 John C. Vassil, Morgan & Finnegan, L.L.P., New York City, David Fernandez, Gibbons, D

Opinion and Order of June 22, 2012 POSNER, Circuit Judge. In my opinion and order of May 22, following the Daubert hearing held on the 16th, I ruled that proposed testimony by three of the parties’ damages experts (one for Apple and two for Motorola) was inadmissible. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-8540, 2012 WL 1959560 (N.D.Ill. May 22, 2012); see Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703. This rul