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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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., 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)

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 - )

Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 152 et seq., to mandate “that local service, which was previously operated as a monopoly overseen by the several states, be opened to competition.” MCI Telecom. Corp. v. Bell Atl., 271 F.3d 491, 497 (3d Cir. 2001). Congress required the incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs) to cooperate with competitive local exchange carrie... More...   $0 (02-23-2010 - MI)

Julie Fairchild – asserting that the Liberty Independent School District Fairchild also has three children who during the relevant time period attended 1 District schools. The District maintains that it fired Fairchild for creating a classroom environment 2 not conducive to learning.

The District adopted DGBA (Local) and BEC (Legal) in an effort to comply with the 3 Texas Open Meetings ... More...   $0 (02-23-2010 - )

The issue presented in this case is whether an attorney not licensed to practice law in Florida, but who provided legal services in Florida in a probate and trust matter, is entitled to collect the quantum meruit value of his fee in an amount in excess of one million dollars. We hold that it violates public policy for a court to award a fee, even in quantum meruit, for the unlicensed practice of l... More...   $0 (02-17-2010 - FL)

After winning a $90,000 arbitration award, a corporate plaintiff pursued a trial de novo, which resulted in a defense verdict. This appeal concerns the defendant’s attempt to use the arbitration statute to pin attorney’s fees on the individual who controlled the corporate plaintiff. We affirm the trial court’s refusal to hold the individual liable for fees; by stipulation, the individual had... More...   $0 (01-27-2010 - FL)

Plaintiffs in this antitrust suit are a group of hospitals and other health care providers that purchased pulse oximetry sensors from Tyco Healthcare Group LP after November 2003. They allege that they overpaid for the sensors because Tyco used two kinds of marketing agreements to foreclose competition from generic sensor manufacturers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. ... More...   $0 (01-10-2010 - CA)

This case arises out of a complex set of contractual relationships between the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the patent-management entity for the University of Wisconsin; certain research scientists at the University; and Xenon Pharmaceuticals, a Canadian drug company. The Foundation and Xenon jointly own the patent rights to an enzyme that can lower cholesterol levels in the human body. T... More...   $0 (01-05-2010 - WI)

This appeal is concerned only with § 202 of the Packers and Stockyards Act (“PSA”) enacted in 1921 to cope with market control of the meat packing 1 industry by five companies. That section as it stands today, codified as 7 U.S.C. § 192, is set forth in the appendix and referred to hereafter as codified. Congress has amended the PSA multiple times since its passage, including additional prov... More...   $0 (12-15-2009 - TX)

Kentucky Speedway, LLC (KYS) sued both the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. (NASCAR) and an affiliated company that owns multiple racetracks called International Speedway Corporation (ISC), alleging that they violated federal antitrust laws by not sanctioning a Sprint Cup race at KYS’s racetrack in Kentucky and by preventing KYS from purchasing other racetracks that already ho... More...   $0 (12-14-2009 - )

In this interlocutory appeal, plaintiff challenges the superior court’s decision denying his motion for class certification with respect to his lawsuit claiming that defendant Honeywell International, Inc. violated the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by engaging in deceptive tactics to create an unlawful monopoly that resulted in overcharges to consumers for the company’s round thermostat. W... More...   $0 (12-10-2009 - VT)

This appeal presents issues concerning whether a non-signatory may enforce an arbitration clause in a contract signed by its subsidiary corporation, the scope of that arbitration agreement, and whether, even if included therein, the Legislature nevertheless intended statutory antitrust claims to be non-arbitrable. Defendants National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA (National ... More...   $0 (11-17-2009 - NJ)

ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In this copyright-infringement action, plaintiff Apple, Inc. and defendant Psystar Corporation have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Apple’s motion is GRANTED and Psystar’s motion is DENIED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Apple Inc. launched its Macintosh computer in 1984 and its Mac OS X operating system... More...   $1 (11-15-2009 - CA)

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. sued Intel Corp. on unfair competition and antitrust violation theories claiming that Defendant wrongfully offered rebates and discounts to monopolize the computer chip business worldwide. Plaintiff claimed that Intel obtained control of about 80% of the microprocessor market by using illegal tactics to maintain a monopoly in the market.

Intel denied wrongdoin... More...   $1250000000 (11-12-2009 - )

The issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the class action filed by the attorney general in this case was properly certified. Under former article 21.21, section 17 of the insurance code, the Department of Insurance (the "Department") may ask the attorney general to institute a class-action lawsuit to recover from an insurer damages for injuries done to the insurance-buying public. See for... More...   $0 (11-09-2009 - )

This matter comes on before this Court on an appeal by
appellant Century Indemnity Company (“Century”) from two
orders of the District Court, one entered May 18, 2006,
granting a motion of appellee Certain Underwriters at
Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”) to compel arbitration of a
disputed claim based on a set of reinsurance-of-reinsurance
agreements, and one entered... More...   $0 (10-23-2009 - )