Cases

MAYER, Chief Judge. Ecolab, Inc. (“Ecolab”) appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, No. 96-CV-73112, which granted Diversey Lever, Inc. (“Diversey Lever”) summary judgment that Ecolab infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,009,801 (“the ’801 patent”) and 5,073,280 (“the ’280 patent”). Because the district court properly interpreted

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MATSUMOTO, District Judge: The named plaintiffs Anthony Chariot, Alan Remache, and Jose Tejada (collectively, the “Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”) brought this individual, collective, and class action against Ecolab, Inc. (“defendant”) for various alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., the New York La

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS On discretionary review, Appellant Bridgett Wright challenges an opinion of the Court of Appeals determining that the summary judgment entered against her by the Kenton Circuit Court was an interlocutory, non-final and non-appealable order, which did not contain the finality language required by CR 54.02. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that the circuit court’

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE TAMIKA R. MONTGOMERY-REEVES Leonard Williams Justice Center VICE CHANCELLOR 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-24-00061-CV KEVIN W. MATTHEWS, Appellant V. NALCO COMPANY, LLC D/B/A ECOLAB, INC., Appellee On Appeal from the 13th District Court Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. D22-30319-CV Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Just

FILED Jul 08, 2019 10:08 AM(ET) TENNESSEE COURT OF

280 F.Supp.2d 846 (2003) John FEIGL, Don Bermudez, John Corcoran, Anthony Favero, John Gura, Lavern Hamende, Donna Johnson, Dow Johnson, Patrick Magee, Donald Pantol, Charles Schmidt, Martin Swart, Jesse Tagle, Robert Tait, and Robert Wierdar, Plaintiffs, v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant. No. 03 C 2290. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. September 9, 2003.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge. This matter is before the court for a claim construction order. The parties filed a joint claim construction statement and claim construction briefs, as well as responses, a reply, .and a surreply. The *384court held a claim construction hearing on March 10, 2015, and took the matter unde

OPINION AMBRO, Circuit Judge. Appellant Transtech Industries, Inc. seeks a new arbitration hearing after obtaining an unwelcome result in arbitration *207with appellee SCA Services, Inc.1 The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Transtech’s motion to vacate the prior arbitration award. We a

191 F.Supp.2d 1346 (2002) MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., Plaintiff, v. Keith D. DUNN, et al., Defendants. No. 8:02CV428. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 18, 2002. *1347 *1348 Joseph A. Dougherty, Paul G. Kirk, Rubin & Associates, P.C., Pa

73 F.Supp.2d 425 (1999) MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH, INC., Plaintiff, v. Trevor B. RAHN and Jacqueline Benderski, Defendants. No. 99 Civ. 10803(RMB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. November 2, 1999. *426 William T. Marshall, Jr., Sullivan & Marshall, New York City, Christopher C. Coss, Eric J. Schr

SUSAN ILLSTON, United States District Judge Before the Court are the parties' post-trial motions (Dkt. Nos. 648, 649, 650, 661, 662, 666), plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction (Dkt. Nos. 660, 666), and two administrative motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 684, 697). After hearing argument and considering the parties' materials, the Court rules as follows.

Dyk, Circuit Judge. *969Power Integrations, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,079 ("the '079 patent") and 6,538,908 ("the '908 patent"). Power Integrations sued Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively "Fairchild") for infringement. A jury found Fairchild literally infringed claims 31, 34, 38, and 42 o

Dyk, Circuit Judge. Power Integrations, Inc. owns U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,079 ("the '079 patent") and 6,538,908 ("the '908 patent"). Power Integrations sued Fairchild Semiconductor Corporation and Fairchild (Taiwan) Corporation (collectively "Fairchild") for infringement. A jury found Fairchild literally infringed claims 31, 34, 38, and 42 of the '079 patent and infringed claims 26 and 2

ORDER ROY B. DALTON JR., District Judge. This cause is before the Court on the following: 1. Qualcomm’s Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Motion for New Trial Regarding Invalidity (Doc. 499), filed December 20, 2013; *12692. Parkervision’s Response in Oppositio

OPINION AND ORDER DONALD M. MIDDLEBROOKS, District Judge. THIS CAUSE comes before the Court for final disposition of the issues presented during a bench trial held from July 29, 2013, through July 31, 2013. Apotex1 asserts that UCB2 infringes Claims 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of United States Patent No. 6,767,556 (the “'556 Patent”) by manu

ORDER AND OPINION J. Michelle Childs, United States District Court Judge Defendants DIRECTV, Inc., DIRECTV, LLC (together, “DirecTV”) and MasTec North America, Inc. (“MasTec”) (collectively, “Defendants”)1 have filed 14 motions seeking summary judgment on claims arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., asserted by Plaintiffs Jame

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER MAE A. D’AGOSTINO, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff commenced this suit in New York State Supreme Court of Oneida County. See Dkt. No. 1-1. In the complaint, Plaintiff asserted violations of federal and state antitrust laws as well as claims for breach of contract, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trade d

Opinion and Order of June 22, 2012 POSNER, Circuit Judge. In my opinion and order of May 22, following the Daubert hearing held on the 16th, I ruled that proposed testimony by three of the parties’ damages experts (one for Apple and two for Motorola) was inadmissible. Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-8540, 2012 WL 1959560 (N.D.Ill. May 22, 2012); see Fed.R.Evid. 702, 703. This rul

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ANALISA TORRES, District Judge: Plaintiffs bring a nationwide wage-and-hour collective action, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq., and nine state-specific class actions, with each class alleging violations of the labor and/or the unfair *469competition laws of Californ