Cases

ORDER PATRICK J. SCHILTZ, District Judge. Plaintiffs Anthony and Philip Conway founded and operated Rochester Medical Corporation (“RMC”), a publicly traded medical-device company. C.R. Bard, Inc., (“Bard”) offered to purchase RMC at a very attractive price. There was a hitch, though: Bard would go forward with the deal only if the Conways would sign five-year non-compete agreements. The Con-ways reluctan

HUGHES, Circuit Judge, concurring. I agree that when reviewed de novo, the evidence in this case shows that Gore’s defenses were not objectively reasonable. I write separately to reiterate my belief that the full court should review our willfulness jurisprudence in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Sys., Inc., — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1744, 188

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. AND DAVID GOLDFARB, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, AND C.R. BARD, INC., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

PER CURIAM: In this diversity case under Georgia law, plaintiff Donna Ellis alleges that the defendant manufacturers, C.R. Bard, Inc. (“Bard”) and Baxter Healthcare Corporation (“Baxter”), are liable for her mother’s brain damage because of their defective labeling and specifically their failure to warn adequately of the danger of having a person other than a doctor or patient

258 F.Supp.2d 355 (2003) C.R. BARD, INC. and Davol, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES SURGICAL CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV.A.99-286-KAJ. United States District Court, D. Delaware. April 16, 2003. *357 Jack B. Blumenfeld, Maryellen Noreika, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, Wilmington, DE, Foley, Hoag & Eliot LLP, Bost

Opinion for the court by Judge NEWMAN except for Part I.E (on-sale issue) and Part VI.C (attempt to monopolize). Judge BRYSON does not join Parts I.A-D of Judge NEWMAN’S opinion. The district court’s judgment concerning the on-sale bar is affirmed in separate opinions by Chief Judge MAYER and Judge BRYSON. The district court’s judgment concerning the attempt to monopolize issue is reversed-in-part by Judge NEWMAN’S opinion (Parts VI.A-B), which Chief Jud

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit __________________________ BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC. AND DAVID GOLDFARB, M.D., Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, AND C.R. BARD, INC., Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant.

Laura Denvir Stith, Judge The prosecutor in the underlying action seeks a writ of prohibition preventing the trial court from applying section 558.046 1 to reduce Larry Welch’s sentences for vehicular manslaughter. 2 Section 558.046, as relevant here, permits a r

(2008) BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC.; David Goldfarb, M.D., Plaintiffs, v. W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Counterclaimant, v. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., David Goldfarb, M.D., and C.R. Bard, Inc., Counterdefendants. No. CV 03-0597-PHX-MHM. United States District Court, D. Arizona. July 29, 2008. <

PER CURIAM. The debtors, Ann and Clifford Bard, appeal from a decision of the district court affirming a bankruptcy court determination that the Chapter 7 trustee should be allowed, on behalf of the debtors, to enter into a compromise settlement of employment claims that Ann Bard had made against her former employer, Firstar Bank. The bank cross-appeals the decision of the district court denying its request to function as an a

ACCEPTED 03-15-00416-CV 7113395 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS

OPINION {¶ 1} Appellant, Stephen Richardson, appeals the summary judgment entered by the Ashtabula County Common Pleas Court in favor of his employer appellee, Welded Tubes, Inc. At issue is whether a fact question was presented concerning whether appellee knew with substantial certainty that appellant's trip and fall injury would occur at its business operation. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0016p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ KEVIN T. LAVERY, │ Plaintiff-Appellant,

Case: 20-1561 Document: 59 Page: 1 Filed: 04/07/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ APPLE INC., Appellant v. QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, Appellee ______________________ 2020-1561 ______________________ Appeal from the United

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, in a case of infringement, courts "may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed." 35 U.S.C. § 284 . In In re Seagate

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ALLERGAN, INC., AND DUKE UNIVERSITY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. APOTEX INC., APOTEX CORP., SANDOZ, INC., AND HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., Defendants-Appellants. ______________________ 2013-1245, -1246, -1247 ______________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for th

MEMORANDUM OPINION ANDREWS, U.S. District Judge: Presently before the Court are Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity (D.I. 302) and related briefing (D.I. 303, 367, 408), Defendant Apple, Ine.’s Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Damages, Injunctive Relief, and Indirect Infringement (D.I. 297) and related briefing (D.I. 298, 372, 406), and Plaintiff Rob

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

TARANTO, Circuit Judge, with whom REYNA, Circuit Judge, joins, concurs in the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, with whom HUGHES, Circuit Judge, joins, dissents from the denial of the petition for rehearing en banc. ORDER PER CURIAM. A petition for rehearing en banc was filed by appellant Halo Electronics, Inc., and a response

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge, concurring, with whom HUGHES, Circuit Judge, joins. I agree with the majority’s thoughtful conclusion that we should affirm all as*1384pects of the district court’s decision in this case. I write separately because, although we are bound by our precedent at the panel stage, I believe it is time for the full court to reevalua