Cases

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Motion for a New Trial) JOSEPH R. GOODWIN, District Judge. Pending before the court is Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc.’s Motion for a New Trial [Docket 450]; Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc.’s Request for Ruling, or Alternatively for Hearing, on Motion for New Trial [Docket 479]; and Defendant C.R. Bard, Inc.’s Second Request for Ruling, or Alternatively for

671 F.3d 464 (2011) Hillary J. KUNDA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.R. BARD, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. No. 09-1809. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Argued: September 20, 2011. Decided: December 23, 2011. *465 ARGUED: Paul F. Evelius, Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for

ORDER David G. Campbell, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Maria E. Barraza and others bring this case against Defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular Inc. (collectively, “Bard”) seeking medical monitoring. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and classes of individuals who have been implanted with a Bard inferior vena cava filter, have not had that filter removed, and have not filed

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Senior Circuit Judge. Section 360k(a) of the Medical Device Amendments (“MDA”) to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) provides: [N]o State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a device intended for human use any requirement— (1) whic

USCA1 Opinion UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 94-1951 LINDA TALBOTT, ETC., ET AL., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. C.R. BARD,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDERS ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL Garrity, J. This case arises out of the termination of a distributorship agreement between William Harvey, a division of manufacturer C. R. Bard, Inc., the plaintiff, and distributor Medical Electronics Corp. (MEC)., the defendant. Bard seeks to recover damages of $137,525.14 for goods sold and delivered to, but not paid

529 F.Supp. 1382 (1982) C. R. BARD, INC., Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 81-1332-G. United States District Court, D. Massachusetts. January 21, 1982. *1383 *1384 *1385 Stephen D. Anderson, Palmer & Dodge, Boston, M

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The court today holds that a person who performs the requested test of a material that is provided to him for testing for a specified use, can then, when the test is successful, patent the material he was provided, for the use for which it was tested. My colleagues hold that Dr. David Goldfarb, who was provided with Gore-Tex® tubular material for testing as a vascular graft

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ERBEY HOLDING CORPORATION; JOHN R. CASE NO. SX-2018-CV-00146 ERBEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER JUPITER CAPITAL INC.; SALT Complex Litigation Division POND HOLDINGS, LLC; MUNUS, L.P.; CARISMA TRUST, BY ITS TRUSTEE VENIA, LLC; TRIBUE Action for Damages LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX ERBEY HOLDING CORPORATION; JOHN R. CASE NO. SX-2018-CV-00146 ERBEY FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BY ITS GENERAL PARTNER JUPITER CAPITAL INC.; SALT Complex Litigation Division POND HOLDINGS, LLC; MUNUS, L.P.; CARISMA TRUST, BY ITS TRUSTEE VENIA, LLC; TRIBUE Action for Damages LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND ALTISOURCE ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPORATION,

PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. This exclusion action was initiated on the complaint of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and Ultimate Abrasive Systems L.L.C. (collectively “3M”) under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(l)(B)(ii), formerly § 1337(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (variously called § 337(a)). The International Trade Commission found that the process claimed in United

LEAHY, District Judge. This is a straight infringement suit, involving claim 15 of Miller No. 1,799,056, issued March 31, 1931. The defenses were invalidity and non-infringement. ' The decision in this case is that Miller ’056 is invalid; but if valid, infringed by defendant’s accused device. 1. Plaintiffs are Duncan Meter Corporation, an Illinois corporation, exclusive licensee under the patent, wh

428 F.2d 555 BECKMAN INSTRUMENTS, INC., and Leland C. Clark, Jr.,Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross Appellees,v.CHEMTRONICS, INC. and J. Ryan Neville,Defendants-Appellees-Cross Appellants. No. 27412. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. April 14, 1970, Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En BancDenied June 19, 1970.

229 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2000) In re: RAEJEAN BONHAM, aka Jean Bonham, aka Jeannie Bonham, dba World Plus, Inc., an Alaska corporation and ATLANTIC PACIFIC FUNDING CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, Debtors.THOMAS ALEXANDER; GAY ALEXANDER; ALEXANDER RENTALS; DEBBIE BAILEY; WAYNE BAILEY; SONDRA BAKER; HARRY BAKER; LISA BAKER; LLOYD BEADLE; JAMES BENNETT; MARIA BENNETT; THOMAS BOYD; SHEILA BOYD; LESLIE BOYD; JEREMY BOYD; JILL CAMERON; RAYMOND CA

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE SYKEMA YOUNG, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. N21A-10-004 JRJ ) CHRISTIANA CARE AND ) UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) APPEAL BOARD,

DUNCAN, Circuit Judge: Petitioner-Appellant Xóchitl Jazmín Ve-lasco Padilla (“Petitioner”) appeals the district court’s denial of her petition for the return of her now five-year-old child J.V. (“Child”), after Respondent-Appellee Joe Richard Troxell (“Respondent”) took Child to the United States. Petitioner filed her petition under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of I

WILLIAM H. STEELE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on a host of intertwined, overlapping and often repetitive motions, to-wit: defendants' Motion for Dismissal and/or for Summary Judgment on Certain Class Claims (doc. 136), Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Breonna Franks (doc. 139), Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Tara Taylor (doc. 140), Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims of Diane

Case: 21-10626 Document: 00516432408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/15/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 15, 2022

THOMPSON, Associate Judge: This unemployment compensation matter is before the court again after a remand order in which we directed the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) to consider, on the existing record, whether respondent Masters Security (the “Employer”) proved the following by a preponderance of the evidence with respect to the conduct that led the Employer to t

519 F.Supp. 351 (1981) STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff, Texaco, Inc., The Louisiana Land and Exploration Company, Intervening Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and Charles W. Duncan, Jr., Secretary of Energy, Defendants. Civ. A. No. 800812. United States District Court, W. D. Louisiana, Lafayette-Opelousas Division. July 7, 1981. *3