This case involved a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Alcon Research, Ltd., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., and Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. against Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. over Apotex's filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking FDA approval for a generic version of the plaintiffs' Patanol ophthalmic solution before expiration of U.S. Patent No. 5,641,805, which covers topical formulations for treating allergic eye diseases. After a bench trial, the court held that the plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Apotex's generic product infringed claims 1-8 of the '805 patent. The court further ruled that Apotex failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the patent claims were invalid as anticipated, obvious, or lacking written description, or that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The decision rested on the trial evidence regarding the patent's validity, the accused product's composition, and the absence of inequitable conduct during prosecution.
The case involved a creditor who missed the deadline to file an adversary complaint objecting to the dischargeability of a debt in the debtor's bankruptcy proceeding and sought leave to file it late, attributing the delay to her attorney's calendaring error. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, finding no excusable neglect under the applicable rules, and the district court affirmed the denial on appeal. The court reviewed the facts for clear error and legal conclusions de novo, concluding that the sixty-day deadline functions like a strict statute of limitations that cannot be extended after expiration due to such an error. The ruling emphasized that the creditor is responsible for counsel's mistake and that high caseload volume does not excuse missing the firm deadline.
The case concerned plaintiff Victor Woods's lawsuit against Wells Fargo Financial Bank alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Fair Credit Reporting Act, along with common law claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith, and negligence, arising from a cosigned loan, an unauthorized additional loan, collection efforts including garnishment attempts, and negative credit reporting that led to a loan denial. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing res judicata barred the common law claims due to a prior state court judgment and that the federal claims failed to state a claim. The court granted the motion, dismissing the common law and FDCPA claims with prejudice on res judicata and pleading grounds while dismissing the FCRA claim without prejudice because the complaint did not allege inaccurate reporting and the relevant FCRA provision provides no private right of action. The plaintiff was allowed 30 days to amend the FCRA claim if desired.
The case involved a former case manager at a privatized correctional facility who sued her employer GEO Group and the Indiana Department of Corrections under Title VII, claiming she faced sexual harassment from supervisors and coworkers, suffered retaliation after reporting it, and was constructively discharged. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on the claim of hostile work environment harassment by supervisors but denied summary judgment on the claims of coworker harassment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. It found genuine issues of material fact as to whether the coworker conduct created a hostile environment that was not adequately addressed, whether certain post-complaint actions like loss of clerks or reassignment qualified as adverse employment actions causally linked to protected activity, and whether working conditions became so intolerable as to compel resignation.
In Bernstein v. Bankert, trustees sought to recover environmental cleanup costs under CERCLA from Enviro-Chem and its principals, along with a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage from Auto-Owners and other insurers. Auto-Owners moved for summary judgment, contending that Indiana's two-year dissolution statute barred claims against the dissolved Enviro-Chem corporation (eliminating any duty to indemnify) and that a prior 1984 declaratory judgment action precluded the claims under res judicata. The court denied the motion, holding that the claims were not time-barred and that factual disputes remained over the scope of the earlier judgments, preventing application of res judicata as a matter of law.
The case involved plaintiff Kayla Irwin, whose apartment was damaged when police officers attempting to apprehend an armed suspect pursuant to a search warrant deployed multiple canisters of CS gas and wooden ferret rounds into the unit, which was later found empty. Irwin sued the city and officers under Section 1983 alleging damages to her personal property from excessive force during execution of the warrant, along with a state-law emotional distress claim. The court granted summary judgment to most defendants and on the state claim but denied it to three officers on the federal claim, finding a material factual dispute whether the officers should have known the apartment was likely empty and that the gas deployment would cause significant unnecessary damage, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.