Charles T. Monroe, a Delaware inmate, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his state convictions for weapons possession and related offenses arising from a 2004 traffic stop that led to a pat-down search and discovery of a concealed weapon and ammunition. The District Court dismissed the application after determining that multiple claims were procedurally defaulted because they had not been fairly presented to the state courts or exhausted, while the remaining claims failed to satisfy the deferential standards of § 2254(d) as the state-court decisions were neither contrary to nor unreasonable applications of clearly established federal law. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.
In Daughtry v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., plaintiff Darlene Daughtry, an African-American former employee, sued her employer alleging race-based hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 after her 2006 demotion from district manager to store manager. The claims stemmed from alleged discriminatory comments by supervisors, inadequate training upon promotion, and her participation in a discrimination investigation involving another employee. The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the claims under the applicable legal standards for hostile work environment and retaliation.
The case involved the sentencing of defendant Paul E. Pavulak after his conviction on multiple federal charges related to sex offenses against minors, including failure to register as a sex offender, possession of child pornography, attempted production of child pornography, and attempting to entice a minor. The court determined that a mandatory life imprisonment sentence applied under 18 U.S.C. § 3559(e) due to the defendant's prior state convictions for unlawful sexual contact with minors. The court reasoned that the prior convictions, which involved minor victims and were stipulated to at trial, satisfied the requirements for the enhancement without needing jury proof under Apprendi v. New Jersey. It also noted that the enhancement under § 2251(e) would likely apply as well, and the sentence aligned with other statutory factors.
This case is a patent infringement action in which SRI International sued Symantec and Internet Security Systems for infringing four patents related to network security monitoring systems. Following a jury trial that found infringement and validity on certain claims of the '203, '615, and '338 patents, along with appeals and concurrent PTO reexamination proceedings, Symantec moved to amend its answer and counterclaims to add inequitable conduct allegations based on positions taken by SRI during reexamination. The court denied the motion, holding that granting leave to amend at this late stage—between liability and damages phases—would require an extensive review of the reexamination record to compare advocacy across proceedings, which is not an efficient use of judicial resources. The decision rested on the timing, the nature of the proposed amendment, and the court's discretion under Rule 15(a).
This case is a patent infringement action in which Asahi Glass Co. and its affiliate sued Guardian Industries for allegedly infringing two related patents on sputtering targets made of substoichiometric metal oxides for depositing high-refractive-index films on glass via DC sputtering. Guardian asserted counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity and sought to add inequitable-conduct defenses, but the court denied that amendment motion. The opinion addresses pending claim-construction disputes and cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement of specified claims and on invalidity under §§ 102, 103, and 112. The court’s analysis centers on the patents’ disclosure of oxygen-deficient targets, prior-art processes such as sintering and plasma spraying, and whether the accused products and references anticipate or render obvious the claimed inventions.
This case involves a patent infringement dispute in which Intermec sued Palm for infringing five patents related to data capture systems and bar code readers, while Palm asserted counterclaims for infringement of two of its patents concerning portable computers and rechargeable battery systems. The court addressed pending cross-motions for summary judgment on noninfringement and invalidity of Palm's '803 and '049 patents after lifting a prior stay and closing discovery. It construed disputed claim terms, determined that certain prior art references did not anticipate the independent claims of the '049 patent, and declined to reach additional arguments on dependent claims or obviousness.