Cases

Access of Department of Justice Inspector General to Certain Information Protected from Disclosure by Statute Department of Justice officials may disclose information protected by the Federal Wiretap Act (Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and section 626 of the Fair Credit Report- ing Act to the Department’s Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) in connection with many, but not all, of OIG’s

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 09-3561 B REWSTER M C C AULEY, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Mersaides McCauley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C ITY OF C HICAGO, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern D

729 N.W.2d 757 (2007) 2007 WI App 22 WIREDATA, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF SUSSEX and Village of Sussex Custodian, Defendants-Co-Appellants,[†]*758 Grota Appraisals, L.L.C., Michael L. Grota and Assessment Technologies of WI, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants.[†] WIREdata, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Village of Thiensville, Grota Apprais

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1847 GRINNELL MUTUAL REINSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. S.B.C. FLOOD WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC. F/K/A FLOOD WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., BRIAN J. FLOOD, SHAWN FLOOD, CHRISTOPHER FLOOD, and KAREN S. COLEY, Defendants-App

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-1847 GRINNELL MUTUAL REINSURANCE CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. S.B.C. FLOOD WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC. F/K/A FLOOD WASTE SOLUTIONS, INC., BRIAN J. FLOOD, SHAWN FLOOD, CHRISTOPHER FLOOD, AND KAREN S. COLEY, Defendants-App

Case: 23-1715 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ JIAXING SUPER LIGHTING ELECTRIC APPLIANCE, CO., LTD., OBERT, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CH LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., ELLIOTT ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., SHAOXING RUISING LIGHTING CO., LTD., Defendants-Appellants ________

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0239p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ VALERIE KLOOSTERMAN, │ Plain

Case: 22-1249 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., GOOGLE LLC, INTEL CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE

Case: 22-1249 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 03/13/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., GOOGLE LLC, INTEL CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION, EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR OF THE

Case: 23-1769 Document: 108 Page: 1 Filed: 10/15/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ CAUSAM ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, Appellee ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC, DBA ECOBEE, ITRON, INC., RESIDEO SMART HOMES TECHNOLOGY (TIANJIN), ADEMCO, INC., ALARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC., ALA

DYK, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom Circuit Judge HUGHES, joins. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed.Cir. 1992), and Jazz Photo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 264 F.3d 1094 (Fed.Cir.2001), remain good law. First, I agree with the government that Mallinck-rodt was wrong

SCHALL, Circuit Judge. These appeals come to us from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. There, in two separate actions, Taurus IP, LLC (“Taurus”) sued various defendants, alleging that their external websites infringed independent claim 16, as well as dependent claims 19, 22, 23, and 27, of Taurus’s U.S. Patent No. 6,141,658 (the “'658 patent

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2024 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 605 U. S. Part 2 Pages 495–608 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT June 18, 2025 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are

122 F.Supp.2d 811 (2000) Jennifer GRATZ and Patrick Hamacher, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Lee BOLLINGER, James J. Duderstadt, the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Defendants, and Ebony Patterson, Ruben Martinez, Laurent Crenshaw, Karla R. Williams, Larry Brown, Tiffany Hall, Kristen M.J. Harris, Michael Smith, Khyla Craine, Nyah Carmichael, Shanna Dubose, Ebony Davis, Nicole Brewer, Karl

654 F.Supp.2d 1226 (2009) G.C., an incapacitated person by and through her duly appointed conservator, Kenneth E. COUNTS, Plaintiff, v. NORTH CLACKAMAS SCHOOL DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the state of Oregon, Ron Naso, Jan Miner, and Angela Tucker, Defendants. No. CV 07-686-HU. United States District Court, D. Oregon. August 21, 2009.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2021 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JAMES O. BROWNING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS MATTER comes before the Court on: (i) the Defendants [Turner Sports Interactive, Inc. and Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc.]’ Motion for Leave to File Defendants’ First Amended Answer, Defenses, and Counterclaims to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, filed October 30, 2013 (Doc. 39 in

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS

ORDER FORRESTER, District Judge. This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs petitions for judicial review of four orders of the Georgia Public Service Commission (“PSC”). I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Procedural History Plaintiff, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. (“BellSouth”), filed the instant actions seeking judicial re