Cases

C. A. Fed. Cir.; and C. A. 10th Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.

Former decision, 133 S.Ct. 1761.Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court. *280 Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copi

C. A. Fed. Cir. [Certiorari granted, ante, p. 936.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted, and the time is divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioner, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General, and 30 minutes for respondents.

LINN, Circuit Judge. This case presents the court with another question of patent infringement by farmers planting the progeny of genetically altered seeds covered by U.S. patents. Here, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC (collectively “Monsanto”), sued Defendant-Appellant, Vernon Hugh Bowman (“Bowman”), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringe

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari granted.

686 F.Supp.2d 834 (2009) MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Vernon Hugh BOWMAN, Defendant. No. 2:07-cv-283-RLY-WGH. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Terre Haute Division. September 30, 2009. *835 Daniel C. Cox, David B. Jinkins, Jeffrey A. Masson, Raymond L. Massey, Thompson Coburn, LLP, St. Louis, MO, Peter J. Sacopulos,

657 F.3d 1341 (2011) MONSANTO COMPANY and Monsanto Technology LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Vernon Hugh BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 2010-1068. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. September 21, 2011. *1342 Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, of Washington, DC, for plaintiffs-appellees. W

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. This lawsuit began in 1997 when Novartis Seeds, Inc., sued Monsanto Company in a Minnesota state court. The plaintiff alleged that Monsanto broke development and license agreements involving genetically engineered, insect-resistant seed corn. After removing the case to the District Court, Monsanto filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction

BYE, Circuit Judge. Dico, Inc., appeals the district court’s 1 grant of summary judgment dismissing its direct cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. Dico was compelled by the Environmental Protec

DYK, Circuit Judge. Appellants, a coalition of farmers, seed sellers, and agricultural organizations, sought declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to twenty-three patents owned by Monsanto Co. and Monsanto Technology, LLC (collectively, “Monsanto”). The district court concluded that there was no justiciable case or controversy and dismissed for

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. NO.: N17C-12-333 AML ) BOWMAN TRAILER LEASING, ) LLC; GREAT AMERICAN ) INSURANCE COMPANY; US ) TRAILER HOLDINGS, LLC, d/b/a ) CO QUEST CAPITAL GROUP,

*753ORDER RE MOTION TO SEVER; MOTION TO TRANSFER; MOTION TO DISMISS; AND MOTION TO STAY CASE [47, 48, 52] DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On September 22, 2015, Plaintiffs Enrique Rubio and Yolanda Mendoza filed this action against Defendant Monsanto Company.1 They filed an amended complaint on October 20, 2015.

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _____________ No. 99-1153MN _____________ Novartis Seeds, Inc. * * Appellant, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States

OPINION MEROW, Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter involves an interplay between two different clauses of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution and presents a novel issue in Court of Federal Claims jurisprudence. Plaintiff, Linus W. Bowman, asserts that the Government violated the Double Jeopardy Clause by executing civil forfeitures of his property subsequent to criminal convictions.

345 F.Supp.2d 613 (2004) In re RESTRAINT OF BOWMAN GASKINS FINANCIAL GROUP Accounts Nos. 09L014520 & 09L014538 No. A03-147. United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division. November 24, 2004. *614 James P. Gillis, Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen M. Campbell, Assistant United States Attorney, United States A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE: RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION (NO. II) MDL Docket No. 2925 Misc. No. 20-00008 (BAH) This document relates to: No. 1:19-cv-03379 (BAH) No. 1:19-cv-03516 (BAH) No. 1:19-cv-03517 (BAH) No. 1:19-cv-03618 (BAH) No. 1:20-cv-00023 (BAH) No

Ryan, J. In this case we are required to determine the effect of the doctrine of comparative negligence1 on our decisions in Funk v General *38Motors Corp, 392 Mich 91; 220 NW2d 641 (1974), and Tulkku v Mackworth Rees Division of Avis Industries, Inc, 406 Mich 615; 281 NW

ROSS, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise out of an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202 and 1343, and an action to recover attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. This court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. Facts This case addresses the question of the extent of protection afforded to instructors in the public school

BEAM, Circuit Judge, dissenting, with whom BOWMAN and LOKEN, Circuit Judges, join, and with whom MAGILL, Circuit Judge, joins as to Parts II C and D. After considering this case four times, this court now affirms two separate $4,000,000 punitive damage awards arising from a single compensable injury. I dissent. Without serious contradiction from any party or any judge involved in this case,