Cases

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent, for the question here presented is not related to federalism and the federal/state relationship, or to pendent jurisdiction of state law issues; nor are disputes about foreign patents so unique as to call up the other theories collected by the panel majority to support this ousting of United States parties from access to United States courts. The certi

CAFFREY, District Judge. This is an action for patent infringement brought by the plaintiff, Cordis Corporation against defendants, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. and Edward J. Luczek. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s dismissal of the case as against the defendant, Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. The dismissal was based on the failu

Error: Bad annotation destination Error: Bad annotation destination United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1238 JAN K. VODA, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORDIS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Mitchell G. S

PER CURIAM. This is a patent case brought by Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. (C.P.I.) against Cordis Corporation (Cordis) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Fourth Division. After a trial, the Honorable Edward J. Devitt entered what is termed a memo opinion and judgment finding in favor of C.P.I. and against Cordis. Cordis has appealed to this court. We af

540 F.Supp.2d 800 (2007) In re ENRON CORPORATION SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION. Mark Newby, et al., Plaintiffs v. Enron Corporation, et al., Defendants Public Employees' Retirement System of Ohio, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Andrew S. Fastow, et al., Defendants. No. MDL-1446. Civil Action Nos. H-01-3624, H-02-4788 (COORDINATED). United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Hou

156 F.3d 952 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7182, 98 Daily JournalD.A.R. 9928Herbert DESROSIERS; Gene Desrosiers, Guardian Ad Litem forHerbert Desrosiers, Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL OF FLORIDA INC., Defendant-Appellant. No. 97-16062. United States Court of Appeals,Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 12, 1998.Decided Sept. 15, 1998.<

Cordy, J. In the present appeal, we consider whether the *742terms of a title insurance policy require First American Title Insurance Company (First American) to defend Deutsche Bank National Association (Deutsche Bank) in a lawsuit brought by a third party, Karla Brown,3 seeking rescission of a note and first mortgage securing that note, orig

Crane, J. This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted to the plaintiff on its claims and against the defendants on their counterclaims in a summary process action following a mortgage foreclosure sale. The defendants assert the following grounds for appeal: 1) that the trial court’s judgment is interlocutory and should be remanded because the summary judgment did not decide the claims against defendant Ma

Cordy, J. In this personal injury case we must decide whether it was permissible for a judge to instruct jurors that they could discuss evidence among themselves during the course of the trial, without the agreement of all parties. We do not indorse the practice except in civil trials where all parties agree, but conclude that the defendants suffered no prejudice in this case from the judge’s decision to allow the jury to do so.

Botsford, J. Only one count of the plaintiff Marie Esler’s eight-count complaint against her former employer, defendant Massachusetts General Hospital (hospital), and her former supervisor, defendant Mary Sylvia-Reardon, survived for purposes of trial. 2 In answer to special questions, a jury returned a verdict in Esler’s f

Filed 11/17/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NEURELIS, INC., D077984 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- 00064665-CU-BT-CTL) AQUESTIVE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendant and Appel

456 Mass. 627 (2010) MILLENNIUM EQUITY HOLDINGS, LLC, & others[1] v. EDWARD M. MAHLOWITZ. SJC-10515 Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk. January 5, 2010. May 3, 2010. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, & GANTS, JJ. Edward M. Mahlowitz (John L. Mason, Jr., with him), pro se.

RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Google LLC's ("Google") Second Renewed Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 for Improper Venue. (Dkt. No. 125) ("the Motion"). Having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be D

MEMORANDUM CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. Presently before the court in the above-captioned matter are two motions for summary judgment on the grounds of non-infringement (Docs. 232, 235), filed by defendants Cirqit.com, Inc., and InnerWorkings, Inc., respectively. Also before the court is the motion for leave to file an amended answer (Doc. 252), filed jointly by defendants, and plaint

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is the Motion of Defendant Cray, Inc. (“Cray”) to Transfer Pur*784suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). (Dkt. No, 256.) Having considered the Parties’ submissions and the relevant authorities, and for the following reasons, the Court finds that the motion should be

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM C. BRYSON, UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE In one of several summary judgment motions filed in this patent infringement action, the defendant, Safeway, Inc., has moved for summary judgment of invalidity as to all of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,054,830 (“the '830 patent”), which is owned by plaintiff Kroy IP Holdings, LLC. Dkt. No. 148. Kroy opposes

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge PROST, in which RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges join. MOORE, Circuit Judge joins Part I of the opinion. Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by MOORE, Circuit Judge. *1308Opinion concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part filed by REYNA, Circuit Judge.

458 Mass. 194 (2010) GEORGE H. BILLINGS v. COMMERCE INSURANCE COMPANY. SJC-10656. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable. September 13, 2010. November 4, 2010. Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, BOTSFORD, & GANTS, JJ. Thomas C. Kenny for the plaintiff. John F. Hurley, Jr., for the defe

MYERS, P.J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part: ¶ 65. While I concur with the result reached by the majority on issue two, I must dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the circuit court’s judgment on issue one. ¶ 66. The jury awarded BCI $1,000 in compensatory damages for breach of the BPA without any proof that BCI suffered any cognizable ha

546 F.3d 1364 (2008) Floyd M. MINKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. Nos. 2007-1490, 2007-1491. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. October 17, 2008. *1367 Christopher T. Hill, Scarborough, Hill & Rugh, of Orlando, Florida, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on t