This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision in In re Stone Resources, Inc., where the debtor, a former franchisee, filed for bankruptcy while subject to a preliminary injunction from MarbleLife Inc. in a related federal lawsuit over franchise agreement termination, trademark infringement, and breach of contract. MarbleLife sought to dismiss the bankruptcy petition under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and to lift the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to enforce the injunction. The district court reversed the bankruptcy court's denial of relief from the automatic stay, holding that the pre-petition preliminary injunction did not constitute a 'claim' under the Bankruptcy Code and thus was not subject to the stay. The court reasoned that the injunction enforced non-monetary obligations like non-compete and trademark restrictions rather than creating a dischargeable claim against the debtor's estate. The decision left the denial of the motion to dismiss undisturbed.
This case was a class action brought by third-party payors, including the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and Indiana Carpenters Welfare Fund, against Cephalon, Inc., alleging that the company unlawfully marketed Actiq—a Schedule II opioid approved by the FDA only for breakthrough cancer pain in opioid-tolerant patients—for unapproved, off-label uses. The plaintiffs claimed they suffered financial losses by reimbursing excessive prescriptions resulting from Cephalon's marketing to non-specialist physicians and non-cancer patients. The district court denied Cephalon's motions for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' claims under state consumer protection laws and for unjust enrichment. The court reasoned that material factual disputes existed on issues including proximate cause, justifiable reliance (which need not be first-party), and whether unjust enrichment could stand independently without a successful underlying tort claim, applying Pennsylvania and Indiana law interchangeably.
This case is a trademark infringement action in which plaintiff R.J. Ants, Inc. alleged that defendants' use of the name "A Taste of Philly" for a pretzel bakery infringed its registered and incontestable mark "A Taste of Philadelphia" used in mail-order and internet sales of Philadelphia-themed food products. Following a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact detailing the parties' businesses, the plaintiff's advertising and sales, limited evidence of customer confusion via phone logs, and the plaintiff's failure to show profits. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove its claims for federal and state trademark dilution as well as cyberpiracy, because the mark was not shown to be famous, lacked secondary meaning, and no bad faith intent to profit was established. The opinion applies the statutory factors under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) and related state law to reach these conclusions.
The case involved MarbleLife, Inc. seeking a preliminary injunction against its former franchisee Stone Resources, Inc. for allegedly breaching post-termination obligations in a 2000 franchise agreement that expired in 2010, including non-compete restrictions, cessation of trademark use, and limits on confidential information, while related claims proceeded to arbitration in Texas. The court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction. It reasoned that MarbleLife demonstrated a likelihood of success on its breach of contract and trademark claims, that it would suffer irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of harms favored enforcement of the contractual duties over any self-inflicted difficulties for the defendant, and that the public interest supported contract enforcement and avoidance of consumer confusion from ongoing use of the mark.
This case is a qui tam action in which plaintiff Bentley Hollander alleged that defendant Etymotic Research, Inc. violated the false marking statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292, by marking earphones and earplugs with expired patent numbers and using those numbers in advertising to deceive the public. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively to transfer venue, raising arguments including that marking expired patents does not constitute false marking of an unpatented article, insufficient pleading of intent to deceive under Rule 9(b), and time-barred claims. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, allowing the case to proceed on claims after a certain date while rejecting the core statutory interpretation and pleading challenges, and it denied related motions to file a reply or for reconsideration of venue transfer.
Liberty Towers, LLC sued the Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Makefield Township after the board denied its application for a use variance to construct a wireless telecommunications facility, alleging violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The suit claimed that the denial effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless services and lacked substantial evidence in the record. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing that Liberty lacked standing and that no case or controversy existed under Article III. The court denied both motions, holding that the plaintiff properly pled a significant gap in service under the FCC's interpretation of the Act—which is entitled to Chevron deference—and that jurisdiction was proper.