Cases

635 F.Supp.2d 313 (2009) PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant. No. 08 Civ. 1532 (WHP). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 14, 2009. *315 Matthew Lehr, Esq., Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA, for Plaintiff. Harold P. Weinberger, Esq., Kramer Levin Naft

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge. DECISION Playtex Products, Inc., (“Playtex”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granting summary judgment to Procter & Gamble Company and Procter & Gamble Distributing Company (collectively, “P & G”) on Playtex’s claims of infringement of the Uni

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Defendant-counter-claimant-appellant Procter & Gamble Co. (“P&G”) appeals from (i) the judgment and order of permanent injunction of the district court of the Southern District of New York (Pauley, J.), entered on May 29, 2003, following a nine-day jury trial, (ii) the order ent

290 F.Supp.2d 886 (2003) PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, and The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendants. No. C-1-02-391. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. November 3, 2003. Allon Stabinsky, Matthew Burke Lehr, Latham & Watkins-2, Menlo Park, CA, Daiske Yoshida, Michelle Lewin, Robert

388 F.Supp.2d 1251 (2005) Mark A. FREEMAN and Timothy K. Stringer, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYTEX PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. No. 02-2250-JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. September 19, 2005. *1252 Bart Alan Starr, Basil Trent Webb, Jonathan N. Zerger, Adam P. Seitz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Plaint

737 F.Supp.2d 909 (2010) Richard LORETO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., Defendant. Case No. 1:09-cv-815. United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division. September 3, 2010. *912 Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, New York, NY, Christian A. Jenkins, Minnillo & Jenkins Co., LPA, Cincinnat

521 F.Supp.2d 1031 (2007) APPLIED ELASTOMERICS, INCORPORATED, a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. Z-MAN FISHING PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED, a South Carolina corporation, Defendant. and Related Counterclaims. No. C 06-2469 CW. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 25, 2007. *1032

411 F.Supp.2d 1008 (2006) MAYTAG CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a Frigidaire, Defendant. No. C 04-4067-MWB. United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division. January 19, 2006. As Amended January 24, 2006. *1009 *1010

776 S.W.2d 732 (1989) Alice MENDEZ, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL PLAYTEX, INC., et al., Appellees. No. 13-88-302-CV. Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi. August 31, 1989. Rehearing Denied September 28, 1989. Thomas M. Schumacher, Corpus Christi, for appellant. Peter J. Balega, San Antonio, for appellees. Before SEERDEN, UTTER and

485 F.Supp. 1185 (1979) The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON INCORPORATED and Personal Products Company, Defendants. No. 78 Civ. 5638(PNL). United States District Court, S. D. New York. December 28, 1979. Supplemental Findings January 22, 1980. *1186

809 F.Supp.2d 127 (2011) CJ PRODUCTS LLC and Ontel Products Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. SNUGGLY PLUSHEZ LLC and Berkant Keiskbas, Defendants. No. 11-CV-0715 (RRM)(SMG). United States District Court, E.D. New York. August 22, 2011. *139 Jason M. Drangel, Robert L. Epstein, Epstein Drangel Bazerman & James, P.C., New York, NY,

388 F.Supp.2d 1238 (2005) Mark A. FREEMAN and Timothy K. Stringer, Plaintiffs, v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant. No. 02-2249-JWL. United States District Court, D. Kansas. September 19, 2005. *1239 Adam P. Seitz, Bart Alan Starr, Basil Trent Webb, Jonathan N. Zerger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Kansas City, MO, for Plain

Case: 23-2062 Document: 37 Page: 1 Filed: 03/07/2025 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IQRIS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. POINT BLANK ENTERPRISES, INC., NATIONAL MOLDING, INC., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2023-2062 ______________________ Ap

CASTEL, U.S.D.J. Plaintiffs are 108 individual automobile dealerships. They are located throughout the United States and sell cars made by a range of different manufacturers, including Audi, Buick, Chrysler, Ford, Hyundai, Porsche, Subaru, Toyota and others. Each plaintiff asserts that it was injured when defendant TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") ran advertisements that falsely promised consumers a "no-haggle," no-negotiation car-buying e

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 'SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE Re: ECF No. 99 JON S. TIGAR, United States District Judge Before the Court is Defendant TT Technologies, Inc.’s (“TT”) motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. ECF No. 99. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the motion. I. BACKGROUND

Ordek ConstruiNG Claims in Dispute; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE INTRODUCTION At the heart of this patent action is an angioplasty device named “Chocolate.” *1280Defendant Eitan Konstanti

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge. On June 15, 2012, defendant Citrix Systems, Inc. (“Citrix”) filed a motion for *883summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity in this patent dispute. Plaintiff Pixion, Inc. opposed on June 26, 2012, and Citrix replied on July 6, 2012. The Court held a hea

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Daniel D. Crabtree, United States District Judge This is a patent infringement dispute. On November 25, 2013, plaintiff Neonatal Product Group, Inc. (“Neonatal”), doing business as Creche Innovations, LLC (“Creche”) filed this lawsuit against Janice M. Shields and Paul W. Shields,-individually and as trustees of the Shields Family Trust, and Angele Innovations, LLC (collectively, “

OPINION & ORDER JAMES D. PETERSON, District Judge Plaintiff Epic Systems Corporation is suing defendants YourCareUniverse, Inc., MEDHOST of Tennessee, Inc., and MEDHOST Direct, Inc. under both state and federal law on the grounds that defendants’ YOURCAREEVERYWHERE mark infringes Epic’s trademark for CARE EVERYWHERE and results in unfair competition. Defendants have moved for summary judgment

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ HZNP MEDICINES LLC, HORIZON PHARMA USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. ACTAVIS LABORATORIES UT, INC., Defendant-Cross-Appellant ______________________ 2017-2149, 2017-2152, 2017-2153, 2017-2202, 2017-2203, 2017-2206 ______________________ Appeals from the U