Cases

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2574 MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY and LILLY USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Ap

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-2574 MONICA RICHARDS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY and LILLY USA, LLC, Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Ap

386 N.W.2d 67 (1986) Linda MULCAHY and Michael Mulcahy, Personally and Individually, and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Matthew Mulcahy and Marc Mulcahy, Minors, Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY & COMPANY, a New Jersey Corporation, Movant; Abbott Laboratories, an Illinois Corporation; American Home Products Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Movant; the Boyle Company, a California Corporation; Breon Laboratories, Inc., a New York Corporation;

MEMORANDUM OPINION PRENTICE H. MARSHALL, District Judge. This case is before the court on the motion of Dr. Arthur Herbst to quash a deposition subpoena directed to him which calls for the production of various research materials in his custody.1 *496The deposition subpoena was served on Dr. Herbst by

STAHL, Circuit Judge. In this appeal, plaintiff-appellant Monica Santiago challenges the district court’s entry of summary judgment against her and in favor of defendants-appellees. 1 In so doing, plaintiff advances three arguments: (1) the legal issues in this appeal should be certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judic

FILED IN NO. 13-212 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 09/11/15 11:24:40 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk TAMI L. WOLE'F, C.S.R. PHONE: (830) 331-8286 NO. 13-212 ROBERTSON ELECTRIC, INC. ) IN THE DISTRICT COURT ) VS . ) 216TH JUD

PROST, Chief Judge. Appellants Sanofi, Aventisub LLC, Re-generan Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Sanofi-Aventis U.S., LLC (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from a final judgment of the district court holding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,829,165 (“’165 patent”) and 8,859,741 (“’741 patent”) not invalid and granting a permanent injunction enjoining sales of Appellants’

991 F.2d 1195 Sharon L. NICHOLS, David R. Nichols, Virginia Ann Callan,Charles Oliver Richardson, III, Marilyn Goodman, Thomas J.Goodman, Debra A. Lopez, Rudolph Lopez, Sharon RuthAnderson, Rosemary Madrid Castaneda, Jesse Castaneda, KarenLeslie-Lloyd, Jacqueline Templin, Katherine Galati Novick,Karen Janet Davis, Peggy Lee Patterson, Michelle James,Patricia Ann Ehlert, Dana Messerly, Raymond Leroy Messerly,Susan Gail Pa

629 F.Supp. 1196 (1986) Nancy GORMAN, Plaintiff, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Eli Lilly & Co., The Upjohn Co., E.R. Squibb & Sons, Inc., Merck Sharpe & Dohme Co., Inc., and Burroughs-Wellcome Co., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 86-0035-S. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. March 17, 1986. *1197 McBurney & McBurney

Case: 20-1074 Document: 132 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AMGEN INC., AMGEN MANUFACTURING, LIMITED, AMGEN USA, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. SANOFI, AVENTISUB LLC, FKA AVENTIS PHARMACEUTICALS INC., REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC., SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, Defendants-Appe

460 F.Supp. 713 (1978) Patsy Takemoto MINK et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants. No. 77 C 1431. United States District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D. March 17, 1978. On Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint October 13, 1978. *714 *715 Robert A. Filpi, Pa

568 F.Supp. 920 (1983) Gladys PLUMMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 80-0556-S. United States District Court, D. Rhode Island. July 1, 1983. Decof & Grimm by Leonard Decof, John S. Foley, Mark B. Decof, Peter J. Cerilli, Providence, R.I., for plaintiffs. Rice, Dolan, Kiernan & Kershaw by John F. Dolan, Pro

PRELIMINARY PRINT Volume 598 U. S. Part 2 Pages 594–616 OFFICIAL REPORTS OF THE SUPREME COURT May 18, 2023 Page Proof Pending Publication REBECCA A. WOMELDORF reporter of decisions NOTICE: This preliminary print is subject to formal revision before the bound volume is published. Users are requ

613 F.3d 754 (2010) SENSIENT TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; Sensient Flavors, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SENSORYEFFECTS FLAVOR COMPANY, formerly known as SensoryFlavors, Inc.; Performance Chemicals & Ingredients Co.; Diehl Food Ingredients, Inc.; Highlander Partners, L.P., Defendants-Appellees. No. 09-2686. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: March 9,

733 F.Supp.2d 1134 (2010) Rebecca YUMUL, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMART BALANCE, INC., Defendant. Case No. CV 10-00927 MMM (AJWx). United States District Court, C.D. California. July 30, 2010. *1135 Gregory S. Weston, John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, The Weston Firm, San Diego, CA, Ja

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 19-173 (Filed: 8 May 2020) *************************************** AARON G. FILLER, et al., * * Plaintiffs, * Patent Infringement; RCFC 12(b)(1); * Motion to Dismiss; Sub

RODNEY GILSTRAP, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE *893Before the Court is Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.'s (collectively, "LG" or "Defendants") Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, and for a New Trial, in the -912 Case (Invalidity) (No. 2:14-cv-911, Dkt. No. 616) ("the Motion"). Having consider

Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel, United States District Judge Before the Court is a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Plaintiff Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") against Defendants Compal Electronics, Inc. ("Compal"), FIH Mobile Ltd. and Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. (together "Foxconn"), Pegatron Corporation ("Pegatron"), and Wistron Corporation ("Wistron"), collectively "Defendants" or "Contract Manufacturers." Dkt. No. 35-1.

HENRY, Circuit Judge. On July 18, 1996, an automobile insured by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) struck Ricky Eugene Clark, a pedestrian. Mr. Clark filed a class-action suit against State Farm to collect extended personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits under the Colorado Auto Accident Reparations Act (“CAARA”). See Colo.Rev.S

WILLIAM M. CONLEY, District Judge This case illustrates some of the perils of going into business with family members, including the obvious risks of intermingling business and personal relationships, but also the less obvious risks associated with using a family name as a trademark. Here, plaintiff Fabick, Inc., asserts claims of trademark infringement under both federal