News
Business
[08/13]
Ohio man buys new truck with thousands of coins
[08/01]
Clothing store opens bar in middle of sales floor
[08/19]
Dividend checks to be distributed early in Alaska
More...
Real Estate
[08/15]
General Shopping Brasil Posts 74.3% Increase in Gross Revenue in 2Q08 and 67.6% in 1H08. Adjusted EBITDA Rises 96.0% in 2Q08
[08/15]
Cyrela Announces 56% of the Sales Speed of 2Q08 Launches and 60% Growth in 1H08 EBITDA
[08/15]
Trump to buy McMahon's home, let him live there
More...
|
Case Summaries
Commercial Law
[08/19]
DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc. In a suit alleging infringement of two patents for storing and displaying footwear for customer self-service, summary judgment of non-infringement of one patent and no liability for damages for past infringement of both patents is vacated and remanded where: 1) the finding of non-infringement was based on incorrect construction of claims; and 2) patent infringement is a strict liability offense, and an infringer's reasonable steps and good faith efforts to cease infringing activity are insufficient to avoid damages.
[08/18]
Golden W. Refining Co. v. SunTrust Bank In an action brought by plaintiff to draw on a letter of credit issued to it by defendant-bank's predecessor, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed over claims that the district court erred by: 1) holding that the letter of credit was not "perpetual" under Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) section 5-106(d) and thereby had not automatically expired before plaintiff made a draw against it; 2) by rejecting defendant's waiver argument; and 3) by concluding that plaintiff's specific performance and breach of contract claims were not precluded by the exclusive remedies available under Article 5 of the UCC.
[08/18]
Am. Needle, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League In an antitrust case alleging that the NFL's exclusive headwear licensing agreement with Reebok International violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to allow additional discovery was properly denied where plaintiff did not identify the evidence it sought to discover; 2) NFL teams are a "single entity" for purposes of licensing their intellectual property; and 3) as a single entity, the teams were free to license their intellectual property on an exclusive basis.
More...
|