Cases

964 N.E.2d 806 (2012) LOPAREX, LLC, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. MPI RELEASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Gerald Kerber, and Stephen Odders, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. No. 94S00-1109-CQ-546. Supreme Court of Indiana. March 21, 2012. *809 Craig W. Wiley, Michael W. Padgett, Indianapolis, IN, Robin K. Vinson, Raleigh, NC, Charles W. P

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE REVOLUTION RETAIL SYSTEMS, LLC, a ) Delaware Limited Liability Company, as ) successor to New Tidel Revolution, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, ) C.A. No. 10605-VCP ) v. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER RAYMOND A. JACKSON, District Judge. Before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Counts III and TV, as well as the portion of Count I involving Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having carefully considered the parties’ pleadings and the arguments of counsel at the hea

*1180MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TED STEWART, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the following three Motions for Summary-Judgment: (1) Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Kai Shuai Industrial’s Motion for Summary Judgment; (2) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Soundvision Technologies’ Motion for Summa

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Introduction Brent Andrews (“Andrews”), and Ernest Rezendes (“Rezendes”, and, together with Andrews “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc. (“WTI” or “Defendant”) alleging: statutory claims for violation of the straight wage provisions o

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. The jury in this case found Sprint Spectrum L.P. liable to Prism Technologies LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155. The jury awarded Prism $30 million in reasonable-royalty damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. The district court denied Sprint’s post-trial motions, and it also denied Prism’s motion for

SUPERIOR COURT COLIN BOOTH v. EVAN SMITH, KATHERINE FAULKNER, AND HIGHLAND PARK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Docket: 2484CV01941-BLS2 Dates: January 10, 2025 <

*1189ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL ARBITRATION; DENYING DEFENDANT HIREASE’S JOINDER IN MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Ronald Gillette began driving for Uber in the San Francisco Bay Area in March 2013. Gillette Docket No. 7 at ¶

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Dkts. 83, 84]; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REQUEST FOR AN ACCOUNTING [Dkt. 79]; AND DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO AMEND [Dkt. 81] VANESSA L. BRYANT, District Judge. I. Introduction Plaintiff Martin Censor

Taranto, Circuit Judge, concurring. I join the panel's opinion in full. Here I add a few thoughts on why I am unpersuaded by the key rationales set forth in the dissent from the court's en banc holding. The en banc issue is governed by statutory language that, as the panel opinion explains, is plain in its meaning. In September 2001, Ingenio (then called Keen) was served with a complaint asserting that it in

Motion to Dismiss; Third-Party Beneficiary; Privity of Contract. OPINION HORN, J. Plaintiff, Threshold Technologies, Inc. *685 (Threshold) 1 brings this action against the United States rela

Mylan Technologies, Inc. v. Zydus Noveltech, Inc., No. 41-1-09 Cncv (Toor, J., Apr. 7, 2015). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT CHITTENDEN UNIT

MCMILLIAN, Judge. Plaintiff Paragon Technologies, Inc. (“Paragon”) subcontracted with Defendant UWork.com, Inc. d/b/a Covendis Technologies (“Covendis”) to supply temporary IT consultants to the State of Georgia. These companion appeals arise out of a series of business disputes between Paragon and Covendis regarding background checks for the consultants, the payment of subcontractors hired by Paragon, and Paragon’s billing ra

732 F.Supp.2d 990 (2010) CONCORDE EQUITY II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Alfred MILLER, an individual; George Cresson, an individual; Loanvest XIII, L.P., a California Limited Partnership; Sentinel Investment Management Company, a California Corporation; South Bay Real Estate Commerce Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; Peter Scott Carter, Jr., an individual; and Old Republic Title Company, a V

369 F.Supp.2d 24 (2005) RF TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, RF Technologies, LLC, and The Ferrite Company, Inc., Plaintiffs v. APPLIED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Timothy Scheurs, Montylee D. Watt, Terry LeClere, Tom Allison, and William Nurre, Defendants No. CIV.05-32-P-C. United States District Court, D. Maine. May 6, 2005. *25 Jame

EISMANN, Chief Justice. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On December 23, 2003, Esser Electric, Inc., (Esser Electric) filed a verified complaint against Lost River Ballistic Technologies, Inc., (Lost River) seeking to recover for labor and materials it provided in performing electrical work in a building located in Arco. Esser Electric was at that time represented by attorney Lary Sisson. The complaint sou

HOLLY L. TEETER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff API Americas Inc. filed this action alleging that a former employee, Defendant Paul Miller, misappropriated its trade secrets in an attempt to lure away business to a direct competitor. Currently before the Court are the parties' dueling motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on two counts-Count V for violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════ No. 22-0878 ══════════ Myers-Woodward, LLC, Petitioner, v. Underground Services Markham, LLC and United Brine Pipeline Company, LLC, Respondents ═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review

ACCEPTED 03-15-00528-CV 7458584 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE NEURVANA MEDICAL, LLC, a ) Delaware limited liability company, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2019-0034-KSJM ) BALT USA, LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company, BALT ) INTERNATIONA