Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “The Direct Response Resource,Inc. v. Hirsch Presentation Systems USA, Inc.”
United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.public domain
449 F.Supp.2d 1 (2006) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, and National African American Tobacco Prevention Network, Intervenors, v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., (f/k/a Philip Morris, Inc.), et al., Defendants. No. CIV.A. 99-2496(GK). United States Distri
Brickley ex rel. CryptoMetrics, Inc. Creditors' Trust v. ScanTech Identification Beams Systems, LLCpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION This case comes before this Court from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas after withdrawal of the reference. In 2011, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the debtor’s (CryptoMetrics) Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan, after which a creditors’ trust and shareholders’ trust were est
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Cross-Appellant v. IMPRESSION PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellant QUALITY CARTRIDGES, INC., JOHN DOES, 1-20, BLUE TRADING LLC, EXPRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC., LD PRODUCTS, INC., PRINTRONIC CORPORATION, TESEN DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) CO. LTD., BENIGNO ADEVA AND HIS
Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.public domain
17-2208, 18-359 Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2018 (Argued: February 13, 2019 Decided: April 1, 2020) Nos. 17-2208-cv, 18-359-cv MAXCIMO SCOTT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, JAY FRANCIS ENSOR, CHRISTIN
In re Qualcomm Inc.public domain
ORDER DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS (Re: Docket No. 1) PAUL S. GREWAL, United States Magistrate Judge A few months back, Applicant Qual-comm Incorporated received an Examiner’s Report from the Korean Fair Trade Commission. The news was not good: the Examiner charged Qualcomm and its licensing of standard-essential patents with vio
Committee on the Judiciary v. Donald McGahn, IIpublic domain
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 3, 2020 Decided February 28, 2020 No. 19-5331 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APPELLEE v. DONALD F. MCGAHN, II, APPELLANT Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM, ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION PAUL W. GRIMM, United States Chief Magistrate Judge. This Memorandum, Order and Recommendation addresses Plaintiffs Motion For Terminating And Other Sanctions Arising Out Of Defendants’ Intentional Destruction Of Evidence And Other Litigation Misconduct (“Pl.’s Mot.”), ECF1 No. 341, which Plaintiff Victor Stanley, Inc. (“VSI”) fi
Neighborhood Centers Inc. v. Doreatha Walkerpublic domain
ACCEPTED 01-14-00844-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 1/8/2015 9:31:40 PM CHRISTOPHER PR
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, Inc.public domain
OPINION AND ORDER WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge. This case is set for a jury trial commencing October 5, 2015. Based on the parties’ extensive brief and oral argument at the final pretrial conference, the court issues the following opinion arid order on defendant Apple’s numerous motions in limine, including several motions to strike expert testimony. OPINION
Phillips v. C.R. Bard, Inc.public domain
ORDER RE BARD’S ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE AS TO FORTY-THREE JOINT SELECTION DOCUMENTS WILLIAM G. COBB, United States Magistrate Judge. In this order, the court will undertake a review of the assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine by Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc., and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) as to certain do
Smith v. Corning Inc.public domain
496 F.Supp.2d 244 (2007) David E. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CORNING INCORPORATED, and D'Ann Grell, Defendants. No. 06 CV 6516 CJS. United States District Court, W.D. New York. July 9, 2007. Patrick J. Boyd, Esq., The Boyd Law Group PLLC, New York, for the Plaintiff. Carolyn G. Nussbaum, Esq., Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, for the Defendants. DECISI
In Re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.public domain
445 B.R. 143 (2011) In re LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC., et al., Debtors. In re Lehman Brothers Inc., Debtor. Nos. 08-13555 (JMP), 08-01420 (JMP) SIPA. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York. February 22, 2011. *148 Jones Day, Robert W. Gaffey, Esq., Jayant W. Tambe, Esq., William J. Hine, Esq., Tracy V. Schaffer, Esq., New Yo
ACCEPTED 04-14-00829-cv 04-14-00829-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXA
American International Group, Inc. v. Greenbergpublic domain
965 A.2d 763 (2009) AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC., Consolidated Derivative Litigation. American International Group, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Maurice R. Greenberg and Howard I. Smith, Defendants. C.A. No. 769-VCS. Court of Chancery of Delaware. Submitted: November 12, 2008. Decided: February 10, 2009. *771 St
Ntsebeza v. Citigroup, Inc.public domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SPRIZZO, District Judge. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: Three groups of plaintiffs led by Lungi-sile Ntsebeza (“Ntsebeza plaintiffs”),1 Her-mina Digwamaje (“Digwamaje plaintiffs”), and the Khulumani Support Group (“Khu-lumani plaintiffs”) (collectively “plaintiffs”), respectively, filed the above actions in eight federal district cou
Honeywell International Inc. v. United Statespublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION1 REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEFENSES. SUSAN G. BRADEN, Judge. The Government and Defendant-Interve-nors have asserted ten patent infringement defenses including: validity; anticipation; obviousness; the written description requirement; enablement; best mode; definiteness; the “first sale” doctrine; inequitable conduct; and prosecution laches.
N0. 01-14-01004-CV IN THE FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS FIRST COURT OF APPEAL HOUSTON, TEXAS AT HOUSTON 10/22/2015 4:44:20 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ___________________________ Clerk Kevin CAMPBELL,
ACCEPTED 03-14-00197-CV 3923343 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/27/20
399 B.R. 722 (2009) In re MAGNESIUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, et al., Debtors. Lee E. Buchwald, Chapter 7 Trustee of Magnesium Corporation of America and Renco Metals, Inc., Plaintiff, v. The Renco Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation; K. Sabel Holdings, Inc., an Alabama corporation; KPMG Peat Marwick LLP; Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities Corporation; Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin; Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP; Ira Leon