Cases

PROST, Chief Judge. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in favor of Apple Inc. (“Apple”). A jury found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and d

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION On October 17, 2014, plaintiffs Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing Limited, and Amgen USA Inc. (collectively “plaintiffs”) brought this action alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,563,698; 8,829,165 (“the 165 patent”); and 8,859,741 (“the ’741 patent”) against defendants Sa-nofi, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Aventisub LLC, and Reg

MEMORANDUM OPINION ROBINSON, District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Pi-Net International, Inc. (“plaintiff’) filed a complaint alleging patent infringement against JPMorgan Chase & Co. (“defendant”) on March 1, 2012 alleging infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,987,500 (“the '500 patent”), 8,037,158 (“the '158 patent”), and 8,108,-492 (“the '492 patent”) (collectively, the

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW SAYLOR IV, District Judge. This is a patent infringement action involving a class of antibodies developed to treat certain auto-immune diseases. Plaintiffs AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG; AbbVie Bioresearch Center, Inc.; and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively “Abbott”) and defendants Janssen Bio-tech, Inc. and Centocor B

372 F.Supp.2d 430 (2005) AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Merrell Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Carderm Capital L.P., Plaintiffs, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Defendant. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant. Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc., Defendant. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc., Defendants. No. CIV. 01-3627JAG, No. CIV.A. 02-1322JAG, No. CIV.A.

MICHEL, Circuit Judge. Defendant Apotex, Inc. appeals the June 10, 2002, order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 00-CV-5791 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2002), preliminarily enjoining Apotex from marketing a generic antibiotic drug, cefuroxime axetil (“CA”), that allegedly infringes U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,562,181 (“the 181 patent”) and 4,820,833 (“the ’

90 F.Supp.2d 277 (2000) E.G.L. GEM LAB LTD., Plaintiff, v. GEM QUALITY INSTITUTE, INC. d/b/a European Gemological Laboratory and d/b/a EGL Los Angeles and d/b/a EGL-LA, et al., Defendants. No. 97 Civ. 7102(LAK). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 2, 2000. *278 *279 Robert B.

BARRON, Circuit Judge. *672 In 2015, two officials of the City of Boston, Massachusetts (the "City") allegedly threatened to withhold permits from a production company that needed them to put on a music festival, unless the company agreed to hire additional workers from a specific union to

OPINION AND ORDER SUSTAINING TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S AMENDED CLAIM OF EXEMPTIONS EDWARD J. COLEMAN, III, Bankruptcy Judge. Before the Court is an objection to the debtor’s claim of exemption in an annuity filed by Todd Boudreaux, the chapter 7 trustee {“Trustee”). Trustee’s objection requires the Court to revisit the Supreme Court of Georgia’s opinion in Silliman v. Cassell, <

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. KELLOGG NORTH AMERICA COMPANY, KELLOGG USA, INC., KEEBLER COMPANY, KEEBLER FOODS COMPANY, KELLOGG SALES COMPANY, Defendants-Cross-Appellants ______________________ 2015-2082, 2015-2084 ______________________ Ap

The Immigration and Nationality Act permits qualifying U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to petition for certain family members to obtain immigrant visas. A sponsored individual, known as the principal beneficiary, is placed into a "family preference" category based on his relationship with the petitioner.

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 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

IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE CELLULAR TELEPHONE ) COORDINATED. C.A. No. 6885-VCL PARTNERSHP LITIGATION ) THIS FILING APPLIES TO COODINATED CIVIL ACTIONS 6886 AND 6908 MEMORANDUM OPINION ADDRESSING CLAIMS FOR BREACH OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT GOVERNING SALEM CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY Date Submitted: July 28, 2021 Date Decided: September 28, 2021 Carmella

13-0618 Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 ------ 4 August Term, 2013 5 (Argued: February 18, 2014 Decided: September 18, 2014) 6 Docket No. 13-0618 7 ___________________________________________

106 F.Supp.2d 627 (2000) A.K. STAMPING CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. INSTRUMENT SPECIALTIES CO., INC. and Indravadan Patel, Defendants. No. Civ.A.98-5576(JAG). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. April 11, 2000. Opinion Denying Reconsideration July 19, 2000. *628 *629