Cases

R. Brooke Jackson, United States District Judge Defendants Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard and 3M move to dismiss plaintiffs' medical monitoring claims, arguing that Colorado's appellate courts have not recognized such a cause of action. Tyco and Chemguard alternatively request that the issue be certified to the Colorado Supreme Court. Several other defendants ask to join one or both of the motions to dismiss. I decline to certify the

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ABDUL K. KALLON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (the “Riv-erkeeper”) filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. *1156§ 6972(a)(1)(B) (the “RCRA”). Doc. 1. The court has for consider

United States Tax Court 160 T.C. No. 3 3M COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent ————— Docket No. 5816-13. Filed February 9, 2023. ————— P is the common parent company of the P consolidated group. As

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-3031 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, ex rel. KWAME RAOUL, Attor- ney General of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 3M COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal

990 F.2d 974 125 Lab.Cas. P 57,351, 16 Employee BenefitsCas. 2008 Harold STROMBERGER, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.3M COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-1928. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. Argued Nov. 10, 1992.Decided April 9, 1993. Paula M. Carstensen, John J.

OPINION LARKIN, Judge. Appellant challenges the district court’s dismissal of its claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because the dismissal was based on the erroneous conclusion that a party may not maintain both a claim for breach of contract and a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the same conduct, and because appellant st

RADER, Circuit Judge. On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M) did not infringe Middleton, Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 4,944,514 ('514 patent), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the district court failed to correctly construe the claims and determin

24-1250-cv Vermont v. 3M Co. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit August Term, 2024 (Argued: February 18, 2025 Decided: August 19, 2025) Docket No. 24-1250-cv _____________________________________ STATE OF VERMONT, Plaintiff-Appellee,

96 F.Supp.2d 1042 (2000) 3M UNITEK CORPORATION, 3M Innovative Properties Company and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, v. ORMCO COMPANY, Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff. And Related Counterclaim No. 99-10099-RAP(EX). United States District Court, C.D. California. February 24, 2000. *1043<

513 F.Supp.2d 322 (2007) BRADBURN PARENT TEACHER STORE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. 3M (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY). Civil Action No. 02-7676. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. May 14, 2007. *323 *324 Charles M. Jones, Jones Ost

946 F.Supp. 596 (1996) Marilyn A. SICILIANO, Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO LOCAL 458-3M, Graphic Communications International Union and American National Can Company, Defendant. No. 95 C 6555. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. November 25, 1996. *597 Marilyn A. Siciliano, Chicago, IL, Pro Se. Wyvonnia

*211 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BOYLE, United States Magistrate Judge: Before the court is the defendant’s motion for sanctions based on plaintiffs alleged intentional withholding of a substantial number of documents claimed by defendant to be responsive to its discovery requests. Specifically, defendant seeks: (1) to preclude plaintiff f

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. Today, we consider the circumstances under which a product produced pursuant to the claims of a. product-by-process patent is “on sale” under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). This is important because, if “on sale” more than one year before the filing of an application for a patent on the governing claims, any issued patent is invalid and the right to exclude other

764 F.Supp.2d 478 (2011) PALL CORPORATION, Plaintiff(s), v. 3M PURIFICATION INC., Defendant(s). Nos. CV 97-7599(RRM)(ETB), CV 03-0092(RRM)(ETB). United States District Court, E.D. New York. February 10, 2011. Nixon Peabody LLP, by Joseph J. Ortego, Esq., James W. Weller, Esq., Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., by H. Michael Hartmann, Esq., Paul J. Korniczky, Esq., Kir

860 A.2d 1013 (2004) 373 N.J. Super. 172 ISLAND MORTGAGES OF NEW JERSEY and Perennial Lawn Care, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M (MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY), Defendant. Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County. June 30, 2004. *1014 Daniel

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. This ease arises out of an agreement between TAS Distributing Company, Inc. (“TAS”) and Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (“Cummins”). In that agreement, TAS granted Cummins a co-exclusive license to use its idle-eontrol technology for heavy-duty truck engines. The agreements required Cummins to “make all reasonable efforts to market and sell” the licensed prod

FLAUM, Chief Judge. The Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company (“3M”) produces and markets a product known as carrier tape. When the company discovered that three of its employees had formed Accu-Tech Plastics (“Accu-Tech”) to manufacture and market resin sheeting, the essential component of carrier tape, 3M brought suit. After dismissing certain 3M claims pursuant to Accu-Te

FiLED IN 5TH COURT OF APPEALS I5 fPR 2g PH g: gO CAUSE NO. QS-14-O151O-CV LISA &‘STZ. CIR< IN THE FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS TRENTS. GRIFFIN Appellant, V. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY Appellee. On appeal from the

295 F.3d 1274 MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY and Riker Laboratories, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, andAlphapharm Pty. Ltd., Intervenor-Appellant,v.BARR LABORATORIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 01-1369. No. 01-1370. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. June 28, 2002.

20 F.3d 750 145 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2974, 127 Lab.Cas. P 11,062 COLFAX ENVELOPE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.LOCAL NO. 458-3M, CHICAGO GRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONSINTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-3010. United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit. Argued Feb. 14, 1994.Decided April 1, 1994.