This case involved a patent infringement dispute between LG Electronics and Whirlpool concerning refrigerator technologies covered by three patents: LG's '121 patent on an ice and water dispensing mechanism, Whirlpool's '130 patent on relocating an ice storage bin to the freezer door, and Whirlpool's '601 patent on liner plaques to reduce wall bowing. After a jury trial, the jury found LG's '121 patent valid and not infringed, that LG infringed some claims of the '130 patent (but not willfully) and infringed but anticipated claims of the '601 patent, and awarded damages to Whirlpool. In its post-trial memorandum, the court denied most motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trials but granted limited relief, including JMOL on anticipation of one '601 claim, non-infringement by certain LG models under the '130 patent, and new trials on damages and other issues where parties failed to preserve objections under Rule 50(a). The court's decisions rested on review of whether the jury's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether legal conclusions followed from those findings under Federal Circuit standards.
This case involves shareholder Herbert Resnik filing direct and derivative claims against Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) and its individual directors and officers, alleging violations of securities laws under §14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, SEC regulations, the Internal Revenue Code, and state-law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and unjust enrichment related to disclosures in a 2009 proxy statement for an executive incentive compensation plan. A related action was filed by shareholder Vladimir Gusinsky. The court consolidated the actions, designated Resnik's complaint as the operative pleading, granted ADM's motion to dismiss one count of Resnik's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) while denying the remainder of the motions to dismiss, denied Gusinsky's motion to appoint lead counsel, and denied the motions to dismiss Gusinsky's complaint as moot.
In this patent infringement case, Aventis Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC sued Hospira, Inc. and Apotex, Inc., alleging that the defendants' proposed generic docetaxel pharmaceutical products infringed two patents covering taxane derivative formulations used in chemotherapy. Following a seven-day bench trial, the court found that claims 2 and 10 of the '561 patent were invalid for indefiniteness, that all asserted claims of both patents were invalid for obviousness, and that the patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The court further concluded that the defendants' products would infringe certain claims if valid, but that the patents were not invalid for double patenting, based on analysis of the patent specifications, prior art, formulation stability, and evidence from the trial record.
Catherine Dougherty appealed the denial of her Social Security disability insurance benefits claim, which alleged disability starting in 2005 due to chronic leg infections, injuries from a prior car accident, and related back problems. The district court granted in part and denied in part her summary judgment motion, denied the Commissioner's motion without prejudice, vacated the ALJ's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to give appropriate weight to the opinion of Dougherty's treating pain management specialist regarding her physical limitations, as the ALJ's reasons for discounting it were not supported by the record. The court also noted deficiencies in the ALJ's assessment of Dougherty's residual functional capacity and the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert.
In this consolidated patent infringement action, Santarus, Inc. and the University of Missouri alleged that Par Pharmaceutical's proposed generic omeprazole-bicarbonate pharmaceutical product infringed several patents relating to substituted benzimidazole dosage forms. Following a five-day bench trial, the court ruled that Par's products infringed the asserted claims but that the patents-in-suit were invalid as obvious in light of prior art and that certain claims lacked adequate written description or were not entitled to earlier priority dates. The court further held that the patents were not unenforceable for inequitable conduct and declined to award attorneys' fees. These conclusions rested on findings regarding the prosecution history, the scope of the priority applications, and the obviousness of combining omeprazole with a bicarbonate salt.
In Lewis v. Phelps, a Delaware state prisoner convicted in 2003 of carjacking, felony theft, and resisting arrest filed a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, asserting claims including ineffective assistance of counsel, due process violations, and prosecutorial misconduct after pursuing multiple unsuccessful post-conviction motions in state court. The court dismissed the petition as time-barred by the one-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), which started running on December 28, 2005, when the conviction became final following direct review by the Delaware Supreme Court. The core reasoning was that the petition, filed in July 2008, exceeded the deadline even after accounting for statutory tolling from properly filed state collateral review applications and without any basis for equitable tolling or other exceptions under AEDPA.