Cases

Memorandum Opinion Andrews, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Vision-Ease has sued its competitor, Defendant Transitions Optical, under federal antitrust law.1 Both Vision-Ease and Transitions Optical are in the business of selling photochromic lenses. Photochromic lenses change irom clear to *385tinted and back a

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-1211C (Filed Under Seal: October 21, 2020; Refiled: October 30, 2020*) ************************************* * SUPERIOR OPTICAL LABS, INC., * * * Bid Protest; Motion for Judgment on the Plaintiff,

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RE INFRINGEMENT JAMES DONATO, United States District Judge Plaintiff Largan and defendant Genius have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the issue of direct, contributory, and induced infringement. See Dkt. Nos. 214, 2151 The motions overlap substantially and focus on the issue of whether Genius’s conduct was sufficiently connected to the Un

BOWNES, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board (the Board) seeks enforcement of its order finding respondent Marine Optical, Inc. (the Company) in violation of sections 8(a)(1) and (5) and 8(d) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act), 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (5) and (d). Following a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), the Company was found to have violated section 8(a)(5) and (1) by withdrawing re

21 F.Supp.2d 582 (1998) OPTICAL CABLE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. MASS. ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant. No. 97-0371-R. United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division. May 1, 1998. *583 Claude Marshall Lauck, Glenn, Feldman, Darby & Goodlatte, Roanoke, for Optical Cable Corporation, plaintiffs. S

671 F.2d 11 109 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2593, 93 Lab.Cas. P 13,249 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,andUnited Optical Workers Union Local 408, International Unionof Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,Intervenor,v.MARINE OPTICAL, INC., Respondent. No. 81-1541. United States Court of Appeals,First Circuit.

470 F.3d 1150 FIBER SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,v.Daniel ROEHRS; Michael Flower; Thomas Hazelton; Rick Hobbs; Kieran McGrath; Applied Optical Systems, Inc., Opteconn G.P., Inc., and Opteconn, L.P., d/b/a Optical Cabling Systems, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. No. 05-41213. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth C

730 F.Supp.2d 1381 (2010) In re: TRANSITIONS LENSES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. MDL No. 2173. United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. August 6, 2010. Before JOHN G. HEYBURN II, Chairman, ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHRYN H. VRATIL, DAVID R. HANSEN, W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. and BARBARA S. JONES, Judges of the Panel. TRANSFER ORDE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 20-3590 (JEB) META PLATFORMS, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION How times have changed. Not so long ago, a company called Facebook so dominated the provision of personal social-networking services that a

Innovare, Ltd. v. SciTeck Diagnostics, Inc., 2023 NCBC 5. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION HENDERSON COUNTY 21 CVS 2180 INNOVARE, LTD., A Nevada Limited Liability Company, ORDER AND OPINION ON Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS AND MOTION TO v.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SMARTMATIC USA CORP., ) SMARTMATIC INTERNATIONAL ) HOLDING B.V., and SGO ) CORPORATION LIMITED, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) C.A. No.: N21C-11-028 EMD v. )

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE CARL ZEISS VISION, INC. : : Plaintiff, : : v. : C.A. No. 11513-VCS : REFAC HOLDINGS, INC. and : U.S. VISION, INC., : : Defendants. :

SYLLABUS This syllabus is not part of the Court’s opinion. It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. It has been neither reviewed nor approved by the Court and may not summarize all portions of the opinion. Facebook, Inc. v. State (A-61-21; A-7-22) (087054) Argued March 13, 2023 -- Decided June 29, 2023 RABNER, C.J., writing for a unanimous Court. The Court considers whether Facebook can be

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE APPLIED ENERGETICS, INC., a Delaware ) Corporation, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 2018-0489-JTL ) GEORGE FARLEY, an individual, and ) ANNEMARIECO., LLC, a New Jersey ) limited liability company, )

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SCHNEIDER NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., ) ) Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N21C-10-157-PAF ) RAYMOND J. KUNTZ, as Sellers’

CORRECTED In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-1079C (Filed Under Seal: October 21, 2021) (Filed: October 28, 2021) ) AERO SPRAY, INC. d/b/a DAUNTLESS ) AIR, ) ) Plaintiff, )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 21-1570C (Filed Under Seal: March 28, 2022) (Reissued for Publication: April 5, 2022) ) IAP WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.

404 N.E.2d 606 (1980) AMERICAN OPTICAL Company, U.S. Safety Service Company and Warner Lambert CO., Appellants (Defendants below), v. Chris M. WEIDENHAMER, Appellee (Plaintiff below), and International Harvester Company, Appellee (Defendant below). No. 2-1276A462. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District. April 23, 1980. Rehearing Denied August 4, 1980.

Filed 6/16/21 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO KIM LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, A157657 v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL NORTH (San Francisco County AMERICA, INC., et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC17562793) Defendants and Respondents.

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 20-926C Filed: December 29, 2020 Redacted Version Issued for Publication: January 15, 20211 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * AGMA SECURITY SERVICE, INC., * * * Protestor,