Cases

ORDER ON DEFENDANT PATHEON’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION Jonathan Goodman, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This litigation arose out of a Collaboration Agreement between two companies involved in the pharmaceutical business, Plaintiff Procaps S.A. (“Procaps”) and Defendant Patheon Inc. (“Patheon”). Procaps and Patheon have spent much of the past three years involved in an expensive, bitter, time-consuming, and

Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge REYNA. PLAGER, Circuit Judge. This is a patent case, in which the outcome turns on the application of the ‘abstract idea’ test, a judicially-created limitation on patent eligibility under § 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101. Plaintiff-Appellant Amdocs (Israel) Limited (“Amdocs”) sued Defendants-Ap-pellees Openet Telecom, Inc. and Opene

[CONSENT CASE]1 ORDER ON CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT JONATHAN GOODMAN, United States Magistrate Judge. In his famous “The Times They Are a-Changing” song, Bob Dylan advised listeners to “admit that the waters around you have grown and accept it that soon you’ll be drenched to the bone.”2 The consequences of maj

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED, Plaintiff-Appellant v. OPENET TELECOM, INC., OPENET TELECOM LTD., Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2015-1180 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of V

OPINION & ORDER PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: Plaintiff LSSi Data Corp. (“LSSi”) moves, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 202(a), 251(b)(3), and 406, for a preliminary injunction compelling defendant Time Warner Cable, Inc. (“TWC”) to provide it with all directory assistance listing data for TWC’s telephone subscribers. For the following reasons, LSSi’s motion is denied.

MEMORANDUM JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge. Before the court for disposition is Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association Fannie Mae’s (hereinafter “Fannie Mae”) motion to dismiss plaintiffs complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The matter has been fully briefed and is ripe for disposition. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny Fannie Mae’s motion.

715 S.E.2d 240 (2011) Jermaine PARSON, Plaintiff v. OASIS LEGAL FINANCE, LLC, Jeff Baloun, and Gary Chodes, Defendants. No. COA10-1414. Court of Appeals of North Carolina. August 2, 2011. *241 Robertson Medlin & Bloss, P.L.L.C., by John F. Bloss, and Barron & Berry, L.L.P., by Frederick L. Berry, Esq., for plaintiff-appel

PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF UNPATENTABILITY [Docket No. 524] THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE This matter comes before the Court on Defendants/Counterclaimants WebEx Communications, Inc., Cisco WebEx LLC, and Cisco Systems, Inc. (together, “Cisco”), Citrix Online, LLC and Citrix Systems, Inc. (together, “Citrix”), and Microsof

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DDR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOTELS.COM, L.P., CENDANT TRAVEL DISTRIBUTION SERVICES GROUP, INC., EXPEDIA, INC., TRAVELOCITY.COM, L.P., SITE59.COM, LLC, INTERNATIONAL CRUISE & EXCURSION GALLERY, INC., OURVACATIONSTORE, INC., INTERNETWORK PUBLISHING CORPORATION, AND ORBITZ WORLDWIDE, LLC, Defendants,

MEMORANDUM OPINION JOHN D. BATES, District Judge. This is a defamation ease filed by Trita Parsi and the National Iranian American Council (collectively, “plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs allege that Seid Hassan Daioleslam (“defendant”) published numerous false and defamatory statements that characterize plaintiffs as agents of the Iranian government.

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, Secretary of No. 16-56529 Labor, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-03911- v. JAK-AGR SCOTT BRAIN, Defendant-Appellant, and MELISSA W. COOK; MELISSA W. COOK & ASSOCIATES, PC, Defendants. 2 ACOSTA V. BR

155 T.C. No. 10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 31183-15. Filed November 18, 2020. P, a U.S. corporation, was the legal owner of the intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute, and sell some of the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trade- marks, product names, lo

OPINION HORN, J. Plaintiff, Chapman Law Firm, LPA, asserts three claims1 against defendant arising from plaintiffs contract with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide management and marketing services for single-family homes in Ohio and Michigan. Plaintiff seeks compensation for: (1) costs that plaintiff incurred during two stop work order periods issu

MEMORANDUM OPINION CRAIG A. GARGOTTA, Bankruptcy Judge. The above referenced adversary proceeding came before this Court for trial the weeks of March 23 and March 30, 2009. After trial, the Court took the matter under advisement. The Court also requested certain post-trial briefing from *260the parties, which has been submitted and revie

224 F.Supp.2d 76 (2002) State of NEW YORK, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV. A. 98-1233 CKK. United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 1, 2002. *77 *78 *79 *80

ACCEPTED 12-14-00220-CV TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/4/2015 3:01:53 PM

ACCEPTED 03-14-00510-CV 4519217 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 3/16/20

705 F.Supp.2d 367 (2010) In re SYNCHRONOSS SECURITIES LITIGATION. Civil Action No. 08-4437 (GEB). United States District Court, D. New Jersey. April 7, 2010. *371 Gardy & Notis, LLP, James S. Notis, Esq., Charles A. Germershausen, Esq., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Milberg LLP, Ariana J. Tadler, Esq., Todd L. Kammerman, Esq., New York, NY,

ACCEPTED 03-15-00348-CV 6616789 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

421 B.R. 251 (2009) In re SMTC MANUFACTURING OF TEXAS, Debtor. Ronald E. Ingalls, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff, v. SMTC Corporation, SMTC de Chihuahua S.A. de C.V., SMTC Mex Holdings, Inc., SMTC Manufacturing Corp. of North Carolina, SMTC Manufacturing Corporation of Canada, and HTM Holdings, Inc., Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 04-16354-CAG. Adversary No. 06-1283. United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D.