Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “Media Copyright Group, LLC v. Legacy 21, LLC”
ACCEPTED 15-25-00020-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/17/2025 7:29 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
ACCEPTED 15-25-00109-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 6/23/2025 5:08 PM NO. __-__-______-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Oak Mortgage Group, Inc. Michael H. Nasserfar Michael E. Task And Tycord R. Gosnay v. Ameripro Funding, Inc.public domain
ACCEPTED 03-15-00416-CV 7412400 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS
ACCEPTED 14-15-00991-CV FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
Boston Duck Tours, LP v. Super Duck Tours, LLCpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit Nos. 07-2078 07-2246 BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. SUPER DUCK TOURS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee. APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Go
Centene Corporation v. Accellion, Inc.public domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CENTENE CORPORATION and ) HEALTH NET, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2021-0206-PAF ) ACCELLION, INC., ) ) Defendant. )
Centene Corporation v. Accellion, Inc.public domain
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CENTENE CORPORATION and ) HEALTH NET, LLC, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2021-0206-PAF ) ACCELLION, INC., ) ) Defendant. )
Al Hirschfeld Found. v. Margo Feiden Galleries Ltd.public domain
PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge This case, now on summary judgment, involves claims of a breach of an agreement between the renowned cartoonist Al Hirschfeld and a gallery licensed to represent him. Plaintiff is the Al Hirschfeld Foundation ("the Foundation"), which, upon Hirschfeld's death in 2003, succeeded to Hirschfeld's interests and obligations under a 2000 Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") with defendants Margo Feide
Nexsan Technologies, Inc. v. EMC Corp.public domain
FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW WILLIAM G. YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE L INTRODUCTION The issue before this Court is trademark priority. Nexsan Technologies, Inc. (“Nex-san”) is a manufacturer and provider of computer data storage, backup, and management technologies. First Am. Compl. (“Am. Compl.”) ¶6, ECF No. 89. EMC Corporation (“EMC”) is a Fortune 200 company that also develops and manuf
WeRide Corp. v. Kun Huangpublic domain
EDWARD J. DAVILA, United States District Judge Autonomous vehicle companies WeRide Corp. and WeRide, Inc. (collectively *841"WeRide") have filed suit against Zhong Zhi Xing Technology Co. Ltd. ("ZZX"), AllRide.AI, Inc. ("AllRide" unless otherwise noted), former WeRide CEO Jing Wang, and former WeRide Director of Hardware Kun Huang (collectivel
State v. McCleesepublic domain
*********************************************** 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
Coinbase Inc v. SECpublic domain
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 23-3202 COINBASE, INC., Petitioner v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION On Petition for Review of Securities and Exchange Commission Order (No. 4-789) _____________________________ Argued on Septem
Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidtpublic domain
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PROJECT VERITAS; PROJECT No. 22-35271 VERITAS ACTION FUND, D.C. No. 3:20-cv- Plaintiffs-Appellants, 01435-MO v. OPINION MICHAEL SCHMIDT, in his official capacity as Multnomah County District Attorney; ELLEN ROSENBLUM, in her official capacity as Oregon Attorney General,
MEMORANDUM OPINION T.S. ELLIS, III, District Judge. At issue post-judgment and- post-appeal in this copyright infringement case is defendants’ claim for attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act of 1976, which provides that “the Court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs” and “reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. This
Shakeel Mustafa v. Felix Rippypublic domain
ACCEPTED 03-15-00422-CV 7320560 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austinpublic domain
ACCEPTED 15-25-00123-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/25/2025 7:25 PM NO. 15-25-00123-CV CHRISTOPHER A. P
Whittney Ford v. the University of Texas at Austinpublic domain
ACCEPTED 15-25-00123-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/25/2025 5:17 PM NO. 15-25-00123-CV CHRISTOPHER A. P
Golden v. United Statespublic domain
FILED MAR 2 9 2018 U.S. COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS 3Jn tbe Wntteb ~tates q[:ourt of jfeberal q[:Iatms No . 13-307C
155 T.C. No. 10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 31183-15. Filed November 18, 2020. P, a U.S. corporation, was the legal owner of the intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute, and sell some of the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trade- marks, product names, lo
State v. Santiagopublic domain
****************************************************** 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