Cases

Gordon McCloud, J. ¶27 (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — The State filed this antitrust action against several foreign manufacturers of CRTs8 and their out-of-*186state distributors, alleging a conspiracy to fix the global market price of CRTs. Defendants9 moved to dismis

22-599-cr (L) United States v. Tompkins UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2024 (Argued: December 1, 2023 Decided: September 23, 2024) Nos. 22-599-cr (L), 22-602-cr (Con) –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

ACCEPTED 01-15-00390-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 6/12/2015 9:25:40 PM

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEFENSES. SUSAN G. BRADEN, Judge. The Government and Defendant-Interve-nors have asserted ten patent infringement defenses including: validity; anticipation; obviousness; the written description requirement; enablement; best mode; definiteness; the “first sale” doctrine; inequitable conduct; and prosecution laches.

318 F.Supp.2d 778 (2004) Jon E. KINZENBAW and Kinze Manufacturing, Inc., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. CASE, LLC, f/k/a Case Corporation and New Holland North America, Inc., Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs, and Case LLC, f/k/a Case Corporation and New Holland North America, Inc., Counter-Plaintiffs, v. Jon E. Kinzenbaw, Kinze Manufacturing, James J. Hill and Emrich & Dithmar, a partnership, Counter-Defendants.

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION (not the court’s final written decision) The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the written opinions that are originally filed by the court. A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential pur

ThijfPlr.tion was fll~ m~:~1r~1 'l at ·UU t&m on~1y 'tw---t:A~ Supreme Court Clerk IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) No. 91391-9 ) v.

MEMORANDUM OPINION KEVIN R. HUENNEKENS, Bankruptcy Judge. The debtors, Circuit City Stores, Inc., et al, (the “Debtors,” or “Circuit City”) filed these bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on November 10, 2008 (the “Petition Date”).1 The Debtors’ bankruptcy cases were consolidated for joint administration pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Fed

MEMORANDUM OPINION NORMAN K. MOON, District Judge. For the reasons stated herein, I will deny Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, and I will dismiss his counterclaims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.1 Additionally, Defendant’s counsel’s renewed motion to withdraw will be denied, without prejudice, and Plaintiffs motion to set this

447 B.R. 475 (2009) In re CIRCUIT CITY STORES, INC., et al., Debtors. No. 08-35653. United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division. February 12, 2009. Robin S. Abramowitz, Lazer, Aptheker, Rosella & Yedid, P.C., Melville, NY, for *476 Bond Circuit VIII Delaware Business Trust. Angela Sheffler Abreu, McCarter

Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register (2025 NY Slip Op 01717) Matter of Attorneys Who are in Violation of Judiciary Law Section 468-a for Failing to Register 2025 NY Slip Op 01717 Decided on March 20, 2025 Appellate Di