Monopoly Law
 
Rosetta Stone, Ltd. v. Google, Inc.

Appellant Rosetta Stone Ltd. appeals from an order, see Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google Inc., 730 F. Supp. 2d 531 (E.D. Va. 2010), granting summary judgment against Rosetta Stone on its claims against Appellee Google Inc. for trademark infringement, see 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a); contributory and vicarious trademark infringement; and trademark dilution, see 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). Rosetta Stone also a... More...   $0 (04-09-2012 - VA)

Rob Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a putative class of retail cable and satellite television subscribers, appeal the dismissal of the third version of their complaint against television programmers (Programmers)1 and distributors (Distributors).2 The complaint alleged that Programmers’ practice of selling multi-channel cable packages violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. In essence, plaintiffs seek to... More...   $0 (03-30-2012 - CA)

ADT Security Services, Inc. v. Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District

This appeal presents issues of state law governing the powers of Illinois fire protection districts. Defendant-appellant Lisle-Woodridge Fire Protection District (the District) adopted an ordinance in 2009 requiring commercial buildings and multi-family residences to have fire alarms equipped with wireless radio technology that would send alarm signals directly to the central monitoring “board... More...   $0 (02-27-2012 - IL)

Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corporation

This case raises important issues regarding the doctrine of “copyright misuse” as it has developed in the wake of the technological revolution of the last 30 years. Plaintiff- Appellee, Apple Inc. (“Apple”), is one of the leading producers of innovative technological hardware and software that has spurred enormous consumer demand for ever evolving technology. The Defendant-Appellant, Psyst... More...   $0 (09-28-2011 - CA)

Rural Water District No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kansas

This appeal arises out of a dispute between a city and a rural water district over their rights to serve customers in several recently annexed areas of Douglas County, Kansas. Rural Water District No. 4 (“Douglas-4” or “the District”) brought this suit against the city of Eudora under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the City violated Douglas-4’s exclusive right to provide water service to cu... More...   $0 (09-26-2011 - KS)

Progressive Products, Inc. v. Tom Swartz

This is an appeal in an action brought under the Kansas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, K.S.A. 60-3320 et seq. The defendants, former employees of the plaintiff Progressive Products, Inc. (PPI), challenge the district court finding that they misappropriated protected trade secrets, and, on review before this court, they additionally challenge the remedial procedure that the Court of Appeals directed.More...   $0 (08-26-2011 - KS)

Harold Caldwell v. MACO Workers' Compensation Trust

¶1 MACo Workers’ Compensation Trust (MACo) appeals from a determination of the Workers’ Compensation Court (WCC) that § 39-71-710, MCA, violates the Equal Protection Clause found in Article II, Section 4, of the Montana Constitution. We affirm.

¶2 We review the following issue on appeal:

¶3 Does the categorical denial of rehabilitation benefits to a workers’ compensation cl... More...
   $0 (07-11-2011 - MT)

Interim La Ventana L.L.C. v. William D. Davis,

La Ventana Ranch Owners' Association ("the ROA") appeals from the trial court's final judgment in this dispute arising from variances granted to certain homeowners within the La Ventana community, allowing for the installation of private water wells and propane tanks. The ROA contends that the trial court erred in declaring that certain water well variance documents were valid and enforceable. Hom... More...   $0 (06-03-2011 - TX)

Mercatus Group, LLC v. Lake Forest Hospital

The First Amendment of theConstitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, federal antitrust laws have been interpreted to protect these First Amendment rights by immunizing petitioning activity from liability. In this appeal from the di... More...   $0 (05-26-2011 - IL)

Yuma Valley Land Company, LLC v. City of Yuma

¶1 Yuma Valley Land Company, Territorial Real Estate, Parkway Place Development, and Saguaro Desert Land (collectively “Developers”) appeal the superior court’s decision dismissing their declaratory judgment complaint against the City of Yuma. For the following reasons, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Yuma Valley Land Company and Territorial Real Estate own real property (“the Pro... More...
   $0 (05-05-2011 - AZ)

Larry Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.

In Hollywood, writers commonly submit copyrighted scripts to producers with the understanding that if the script is used, the producer must compensate the writer for the use of the copyrighted material. But what happens when the producer uses the idea or concept embodied in the script, but doesn’t pay? The Supreme Court of California, in 1956, answered this question by recognizing an implied con... More...   $0 (05-04-2011 - CA)

Max W. Coll, II v. First American Title Insurance Company

In this litigation, Plaintiffs challenge New Mexico’s statutory scheme regulating title insurance, arguing it is contrary to state law. Here, Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s decision dismissing their claims against several title insurance companies that have complied with this New Mexico law. Having jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM.1

I. BACKGROUND

... More...
   $0 (04-26-2011 - NM)

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

Liability under §1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U. S. C. §1, requires a “contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce.” The question in this putative class action is whether a §1 complaint can survive a motion to dismiss when it alleges that major telecommunications providers engaged in certain parallel conduct unfavorable to competition, absent some factual cont... More...   $0 (02-27-2011 - )

William White v. R.M. Packer Co., Inc.

The plaintiffs in this case complain that the prices for gasoline on Martha's Vineyard have been artificially high due both to an illegal price-fixing conspiracy among four of the island's nine gas stations and to unconscionable price-gouging in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005. As to the antitrust claims, the stations agree for the purposes of summary judgment that there is ev... More...   $0 (02-18-2011 - MA)

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Singapore Private Lim-ited (collectively, “Uniloc”) appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island granting Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-infringement and no willful infringement of asserted claims of Uniloc’s U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 (“’216... More...   $0 (01-04-2011 - RI)

MDY Industries, LLC v. Bizzard Entertainment, Inc. and Vivendi Games, Inc.

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Blizzard”) is the creator of World of Warcraft (“WoW”), a popular multiplayer online role-playing game in which players interact in a virtual world while advancing through the game’s 70 levels. MDY Industries, LLC and its sole member Michael Donnelly (“Donnelly”) (sometimes referred to collectively as “MDY”) developed and sold Glider, a software pro... More...   $0 (12-15-2010 - AZ)

Michael Shames v. California Travel and Tourism Commission

Plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow (“Plaintiffs”) appeal the dismissal of their claims against the California Travel and Tourism Commission (“CTTC”) alleging the CTTC engaged in antitrust price-fixing in violation of the Sherman Act § 1, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and improper meeting practices in violation of California’s Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11120-11132. ... More...   $0 (11-24-2010 - CA)

Marty Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA

Plaintiffs are Missouri beer consumers suing to enjoin the now-consummated acquisition of Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. (“A-B”), by InBev NV/SA (“InBev”) on the ground that the transaction violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18. Relying on the potential competition theories of § 7 liability, Plaintiffs allege that the merger threatens to reduce competition and increase be... More...   $0 (10-27-2010 - MO)

Matell, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

Who owns Bratz?

I

Barbie was the unrivaled queen of the fashion-doll market throughout the latter half of the 20th Century. But 2001 saw the introduction of Bratz, “The Girls With a Passion for Fashion!” Unlike the relatively demure Barbie, the urban, multiethnic and trendy Bratz dolls have attitude. This spunk struck a chord, and Bratz became an overnight success. Mattel, which ... More...
   $0 (07-23-2010 - CA)

James Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.

When a group of companies conspires to fix prices at higher than a competitive level, the resulting overcharge is paid in the first instance by the direct purchaser of the cartel‟s goods. In markets where the direct purchaser is not also the ultimate purchaser, but an intermediary between the cartel and the consumer (the indirect purchaser), several questions arise: First, who should be permitte... More...   $0 (07-12-2010 - CA)

McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Col... More...   $0 (06-28-2010 - IL)

Comcast Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America

In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider’s network management practices. Acknowledging that it has no express statutory authority over such practices, the Commission relies on section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, which authorizes the Commission to “perform any and all acts, make such rules and re... More...   $0 (04-06-2010 - DC)

Herbert Kilmer v. Elexco Land Services, Inc.

The case at bar concerns the proper construction of the term “royalty” as it is used in the Guaranteed Minimum Royalty Act (“GMRA”), 58 P.S. § 33, which governs, inter alia, leases between Pennsylvania landowners and gas companies seeking to drill natural gas wells into Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale deposits. As developed below, the GMRA requires that leases guarantee the landowner-les... More...   $0 (03-24-2010 - PA)

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College (collectively, “Ariad”) brought suit against Eli Lilly & Company (“Lilly”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 6,410,516 (“the ’516 patent”). After ... More...   $0 (03-22-2010 - MA)

Teva Pharmaceuticals, USA, Inc v. Kathleen Sebelius

This is the latest installment in a long-running series of cases concerning an incentive that Congress established for companies to bring “generic” versions of branded drugs to market faster than they otherwise might. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a manufacturer of generics, has received tentative approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell losartan potassium products—used ... More...   $0 (03-02-2010 - )

Next Page

Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: