Findlaw News

Case Summaries

Intellectual Property

[02/08] Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC
In a patent infringement suit involving patents relating to technology for weighing objects, such as large commercial trucks: 1) the district court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed, where the district court correctly construed the claims of one patent and substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of invalidity of another patent; and 2) the district court's denial of sanctions against the plaintiff for alleged withholding and destruction of relevant documents is affirmed, where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the documents were not highly relevant and that there was little harm to the defendant.

[02/07] Adair v. Carter
On appeal a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences holding that the appellants' single claim involved in an interference with the appellees was time-barred under 35 USC section 135(b)(1), the decision of the Board is affirmed, where: 1) to overcome a section 135(b) bar for a post-critical date claim, an applicant must show that such claim is not materially different from a pre-critical date claim present in the application or any predecessor thereto in order to obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date, and in this case the Board found material differences; 2) the Board properly presumed material differences between the plaintiffs' post- and pre-critical date claims; 3) the Board did not establish any absolute requirement that the pre-critical date claims must have been patentable to the plaintiff, and doing so would have been harmless error; and 4) the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider a claim for the first time on rehearing.

[02/07] Secalt, S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.
In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

[02/01] Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
In a patent infringement action concerning a patent relating to a tactile feedback system for computer video games, the district court's judgment of noninfringement upon stipulation is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the district court improperly limited the term "attached to said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface, and the parties based the stipulation of noninfringement on the district court's erroneous construction of this claim; and 2) the district court erred in its construction of the term "flexible."

Read More

Dispute Resolution & Arbitration

[02/07] Maaso v. Signer
On cross-appeals of a trial court judgment on an arbitration award rendered in favor of the plaintiff after the defendant had prevailed in an earlier, vacated arbitration of the matter, the judgment is affirmed, where: 1) the defendant did not forfeit his challenge to the trial court’s order vacating the first arbitration award; but 2) the trial court correctly vacated the first arbitration award due to an ex parte communication between a party arbitrator and the neutral arbitrator while the outcome of the case was still under consideration; and 3) the trial court did not in refusing to award the plaintiff Section 998 costs, including expert witness and arbitrator fees, and Section 3291 prejudgment interest, because he never requested these enhancements from the arbitrators.

[02/07] Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc.
A judgment confirming an arbitration award is affirmed, where the trial court properly: 1) compelled arbitration; 2) determined that the procedure by which the arbitration was conducted due to one arbitrator's unexpected surgery did not exceed the arbitrators’ power; and 3) confirmed the award, rejecting appellant's claims that the issue arbitrated was barred by the law of the case and that there was no basis for personal liability.

[02/03] Scandinavian Reinsurance Co. Ltd. v. Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.
The district court's grant of a petition to vacate an arbitral award is reversed, and on remand the district court is instructed to grant a cross-petition to confirm the award, where there was insufficient evidence before the district court on which to base a finding of "evident partiality" within the meaning of the Federal Arbitration Act despite the failure of two arbitrators to disclose their concurrent service as arbitrators in another, arguably similar, arbitration.

[02/03] Biller v. Toyota Motor Corp.
In a dispute over the violation of an employment severance agreement, the district court's confirmation of an arbitration award is affirmed, where: 1) the severance agreement called for arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act; 2) the district court did not err by not conducting a merits review of the award; and 3) the arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law governing the severance agreement. Denial of the appellant's motion for contempt is also affirmed, where under the plain terms of a permanent injunction issued by the court, the employer was entitled to delete documents from the appellant's computer.

Read More