Monopoly Law
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 - )

Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. J. Peter Lark, Commissioner, et al.

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 v. Liberty Independent School District

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 - )

Carla R. Morrison v. William E. West, Jr.

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)

Dunkin' Donuts Franchised Restaurants, LLC v. 330545 Donuts, Inc.

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)

Allied Orthopedic Appliances, Inc. v. Tyco Health Care Group, L.P.

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)

Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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)

Cody Wheeler v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation

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 v. National Association of Stock Care Auto Racing, Inc.

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 - )

Alfred T. Wright v. Honeywell International, Inc.

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)

Epix Holdings Corporation v. Marsh & McClennan Companies, Inc.

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)

Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corporation


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.


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. v. Intel Corp.

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 - )

Jan Lubin v. Farmers Group, Inc.

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 - )

Century Indemnity Company v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London

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 - )

Saint Alphonsus Diversified Care, Inc. v. MRI Associates, LLP

This is an appeal from a judgment against a general partner for wrongful dissociation, breach of a noncompete clause, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations or business expectations, breach of fiduciary duties, and civil conspiracy. We vacate the judgment and remand this case for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROU... More...
   $0 (10-21-2009 - ID)

David D. Beal, et al. v. David A. McGuire, et al.

Six members of a joint venture sued two other members, primarily claiming breaches of fiduciary duties. The joint venture, most of whose members were Anchorage physicians, owned a medical services condominium on Laurel Street and leased it out for use as an ambulatory surgical center. The plaintiffs claimed in part that the joint venturer defendants and others were liable for moving the surgical c... More...   $0 (10-08-2009 - AK)

Four Corners Nephrology Associates, P.C. v. Mercy Medical Center of Durango

To provide Durango, Colorado, residents and Southern Ute Indian tribe members with greater access to kidney dialysis and other nephrology services, Mercy Medical Center, a non-profit hospital, together with the tribe, sought to entice Dr. Mark Bevan to join the hospital’s active staff. When Dr. Bevan declined, the hospital hired somebody else. To convince that physician and others to settle in D... More...   $0 (09-30-2009 - CO)

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (“Prometheus”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granting summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patents 6,355,623 (“the ’623 patent”) and 6,680,302 (“the ’302 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Prometheus Labs., Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., No. 04-CV-1200, 2008 WL 878910 (S.... More...   $0 (09-17-2009 - CA)

Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd.

This is a patent case. Amgen Inc. (“Amgen”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,441,868 (“the ’868 patent”), 5,547,933 (“the ’933 patent”), 5,618,698 (“the ’698 patent”), 5,756,349 (“the ’349 patent”), and 5,955,422 (“the ’422 patent”). The patents relate to the production of the protein erythropoietin (“EPO”) using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”)... More...   $0 (09-15-2009 - )

Maryland Department of Transportation v. Gregory Maddalone

In January 2007, Gregory J. Maddalone, the appellee, was fired from his “Administrator VI” job with the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), the appellant. As he acknowledges, that job was the last in a series of patronage positions he held during the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for whom he had worked and campaigned.

Maddalone challenged his termina... More...
   $0 (08-31-2009 - MD)

Maryland Department of Transportation v. Gregory Maddalone

In January 2007, Gregory J. Maddalone, the appellee, was fired from his “Administrator VI” job with the Maryland Department of Transportation (“MDOT”), the appellant. As he acknowledges, that job was the last in a series of patronage positions he held during the administration of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., for whom he had worked and campaigned.

Maddalone challenged his termina... More...
   $0 (08-31-2009 - MD)

One Industries, LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc.

We venture into the world of motocross racing to determine whether federal trademark law protects a motorcycle apparel company’s use of a stylized “O” on its products. ONE INDUSTRIES v. O’NEAL DISTRIBUTING 11599



Motocross is a popular form of off-road, rough terrain motorcycle racing. Jim O’Neal Distributing, Inc. (“O’Neal”), is a leader in the industry. Fo... More...
   $0 (08-24-2009 - CA)

Minneapolis Taxi Owners v. City of Minneapolis

In 2006, the City of Minneapolis (the “City”) amended its taxicab ordinance to uncap the number of transferable taxicab licenses it issues, thereby opening a previously restricted market. The Minneapolis Taxi Owners Coalition (the “Coalition”), a group comprising holders of approximately seventy-five transferable taxicab licenses, sued the City, asserting federal and state constitutional v... More...   $0 (07-14-2009 - MN)

Next Page

Find a Lawyer


Find a Case