In this patent infringement case, ActiveVideo Networks sued Verizon Communications for infringing four of its patents through Verizon's Video On Demand services offered via its FiOS system. A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding Verizon liable on all asserted patents and awarding ActiveVideo $115 million in damages. ActiveVideo then moved for a permanent injunction to bar Verizon's continued use of two of the patents. Applying the four-factor equitable test from eBay v. MercExchange, the court found that ActiveVideo suffered irreparable harm including loss of market share and goodwill not adequately compensable by money damages, that the balance of hardships favored injunctive relief, and that the public interest would not be disserved, leading the court to grant the permanent injunction with provisions for a sunset period allowing Verizon time to implement alternatives.
This case concerns Justin Wolfe's federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his Virginia state convictions for capital murder (murder-for-hire), firearm use, and conspiracy to distribute marijuana, which resulted in a death sentence. The district court had previously granted the petition, finding due process violations under Brady v. Maryland, improper use of false testimony under Giglio v. United States, and a denial of an impartial jury under the Sixth Amendment, and ordered the convictions vacated. The state respondent moved for a temporary stay of that judgment pending appeal, while Wolfe moved for release pending appeal. Applying the factors from Hilton v. Braunskill, the court granted the stay of the judgment vacating the convictions during the appeal but granted partial relief by ordering Wolfe transferred back to death row with restored prior conditions of confinement, denying unconditional release.
The case concerns Evanston Insurance Company's declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that it owes no duty to defend or indemnify Harbor Walk Development under three commercial general liability policies in connection with three underlying lawsuits by homeowners alleging property damage and bodily injury from noxious gases emitted by Chinese drywall installed in their homes. The policies provide coverage for bodily injury or property damage caused by an occurrence but contain pollution exclusions barring coverage for injury or damage arising from the discharge or release of pollutants, defined to include irritants, contaminants, fumes, and chemicals. The court granted summary judgment to Evanston, holding that the exclusions apply because the drywall emissions constitute pollutants and that the underlying claims fall squarely within the policy language excluding such harms.
This case involves Justin Michael Wolfe's federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2002 Virginia convictions for capital murder-for-hire, firearm use, and marijuana conspiracy, for which he received a death sentence. Wolfe alleged due process violations under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States due to the prosecution's suppression of exculpatory evidence and knowing use of false testimony from key witness Owen Barber, along with a claim that the trial court improperly struck a qualified juror. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the suppressed evidence and perjured testimony were material to guilt or punishment and that the Commonwealth failed to disclose favorable information as required. The court granted Wolfe's petition for habeas relief, vacated his convictions, and ordered his release unless the state elects to retry him within a specified period, while denying relief on the juror claim.
This case is a patent infringement action in which Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and its licensees sued BioPet Vet Lab and PetSafe, alleging that the defendants' DNA breed identification kits infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,729,863. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction under Rule 65 to halt the defendants' sales and marketing of the products. After a hearing and review of evidence on validity challenges, the court granted the injunction. It applied the four-factor Winter test, found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits given the patent's presumption of validity and insufficient showing of anticipation by prior art, and concluded that irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest supported relief.
This case involves plaintiff Curly Hill's action under the Social Security Act seeking judicial review of the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits. The plaintiff argued that the administrative law judge failed to adequately consider his testimony about lack of medical treatment during incarceration. After conducting a de novo review of the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding of no medical signs or laboratory findings establishing a medically determinable impairment prior to the date last insured. The court therefore denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendant's motion, and affirmed the Commissioner's final decision.