This case involved Affinity Labs suing Hyundai/Kia for infringing two patents on systems and methods for connecting portable devices like MP3 players to a vehicle's sound system, allowing display and control of audio files via the car's interface. A jury found infringement of the '833 and '228 patents but awarded no damages for vehicle sales without a corresponding iPod cable sale. After denying a permanent injunction, the court addressed the ongoing royalty rate for post-judgment infringing sales. It set the rate at $14.50 per accused vehicle sold with a corresponding Hyundai/Kia iPod cable, drawing from the jury's damages findings, the parties' expert opinions on royalty bases and amounts, and the trial record to determine adequate compensation.
In Chilton v. Moser, debtors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case claimed an exemption for an inherited IRA worth about $170,000 under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(12), which the Chapter 13 Trustee challenged on the grounds that the account did not contain the debtors' own retirement funds and was not tax-exempt in the same way as a traditional IRA. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the objection and denied the exemption as a matter of first impression. On appeal, the District Court reversed, holding that the inherited IRA qualified for the exemption. The court reasoned that the funds remained retirement funds even though inherited, that IRC § 408(e) exempts any IRA from taxation without distinguishing inherited accounts, and that a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer of the funds did not disqualify the exemption under § 522(b)(4)(C).
In this patent case, plaintiff Ohio Willow Wood sued defendant Thermo-Ply for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,291,182. The district court granted summary judgment invalidating most claims of the patent as obvious and entered final judgment. After the parties appealed and reached a settlement during the Federal Circuit's mandatory mediation program that was conditioned on vacating the invalidity ruling, they jointly moved the district court to vacate the relevant portions of the summary judgment and judgment. The court denied the motion, reasoning that under Supreme Court precedent in Bancorp, vacatur is an exceptional remedy not warranted merely by settlement, and that in this case the existing invalidity ruling would efficiently resolve related disputes in other forums without wasting judicial resources, as the issues were likely to recur on appeal anyway.
This case involves a declaratory judgment action by American Southern Insurance Company (ASIC) against several defendants, including Michael Buckley d/b/a Buckley & Sons Plumbing and Colony Insurance, seeking a ruling on coverage obligations under commercial general liability policies for property damage claims arising from plumbing work on a hospital construction project. The underlying dispute stems from a state court lawsuit alleging water damage and defects from work performed between 2004 and 2006. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying ASIC's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and its motion to dismiss Colony's breach of contract counterclaim, granting dismissal of Colony's Texas Insurance Code statutory claim, and denying the motions to strike the defendants' answers and counterclaims as untimely or improper. The court found that the pleadings were directly related to the coverage controversy and that motions to strike are disfavored when not based on the content standards of Rule 12(f). No objections were filed to the magistrate's findings.
In United States v. Johnson, the defendant pled guilty to one count of possessing child pornography involving over 500 images and 175 movies, many depicting prepubescent minors, which he obtained via peer-to-peer networks. The district court varied upward from the Sentencing Guidelines range and imposed a sentence of 70 months' imprisonment. The court rejected the defendant's argument for a downward variance based on claims that the child pornography guidelines deserve no deference because Congress directed increases to the base offense levels and enhancements. The core reasoning was that Congress holds constitutional authority to set federal sentencing policy and direct the Sentencing Commission, the guidelines remain advisory after Booker and must serve as the starting point for analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and individualized case facts—not wholesale policy attacks—determine whether a variance is warranted.
This case involved a patent infringement suit by Cummins-Allison against SBM regarding devices and methods for currency denomination and counterfeit detection. After a jury found infringement of two valid patents and set a $400 per unit royalty rate, the court entered judgment on the verdict for pre-trial damages and issued a permanent injunction. For sales of infringing products occurring after the verdict but before the injunction took effect, the court determined that such sales were willful under the Seagate factors and enhanced the royalty to $500 per unit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. The court reasoned that a finding of infringement renders subsequent sales willful, justifying enhancement of the jury-determined royalty rate while relying on the same economic analysis for the base damages calculation.