Search

The article reports on the request by the International Association of Machinists in Aerospace for the U.S. District Court to block Pratt & Whitney from moving jobs in two engine overhaul facilities near Hartford, Connecticut to lower-costs plants in Georgia, Singapore and Japan. There are 830 machinists from the 1,050 employees at the combined facilities but the parties failed to agree on options to avoid the plant shutdowns. According to Pratt & Whitney, the firm faces a drop in volume, shifting customer base and a declining aerospace market.

The article discusses two U.S. court cases, the Urethane Antitrust litigation and the Versata Software patent case. A U.S. district court in Kansas on May 15, 2013 ruled a 1.2 billion U.S. dollar award in a class action against The Dow Chemical Company that was found to have fixed prices for the chemical urethane. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a 345 million U.S. dollar verdict that Versata Software Inc. won in 2011 in a software patent case against SAP AG.

The article discusses the dismissal of lawsuit by the U.S. district court in California on endangered species. It is mentioned that the lawsuit was dismissed by the Judge Joseph C. Spero as the organizations Center for Biological Diversity and the Pesticide Action Network North America lacked sufficient government action related to risk on endangered species due to crop protection chemicals.

The article focuses on several conflicting court decisions that address the distinction between owning and licensing computer software. The author compares the May 20, 2008 Vernor v. Autodesk decision in Seattle, Washington, with the Blizzard v. MDY case, decided on July 14, 2008 in Arizona, and notes how the Vernor case deviates from previous court decisions. He describes the legal arguments of each and their use of different sections of the U.S. Copyright Law. The author comments on the chances that the Vernor decision will be allowed to stand and discusses the implications for software publishers.

The article reports that the judge hearing British author J. K. Rowling's copyright-infringement lawsuit against an unauthorized Harry Potter encyclopedia urged both sides to settle the case. On the final day of the three-day trial in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge Robert P. Patterson suggested that appeals may delay resolution for years,

The article reports that University of Tennessee Professor J. Reece Roth was convicted September 3, 2008 on 18 counts of unlawfully passing data to Chinese and Iranian post-graduate students on a plasma actuator used in an unmanned aerial vehicle munitions project. The jury in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has rejected Roth's defense that two foreign nationals working on Air Force contracts had access only to basic research.

the article offers information on the Great Britain's court case, "ACL Netherlands BV & Ors v Lynch & Hussain". Topics discussed include information on the number of the Claimants applied for permission to provide the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) with copies of the Defendants’ disclosure material and the witness statements served earlier in the proceedings; and the permission provided in order to comply with a subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court.

The article reports on the data trespass law passed by the Wyoming Legislature which was ruled by the District Court of Wyoming for violating the First Amendment.

The article discusses the case of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Junhong v. Boeing Co. where lawsuits filed against Boeing involving a plane crash into seawall separating Pacific Ocean and runway of airport. It states that according to the Illinois district court, Boeing did not act as a federal officer and jurisdiction was not available because the crash was on land not over water. It mentions that self-certification does not constitute under federal agency.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Mohamed et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. where the plaintiffs filed suit against Uber, alleging putative class claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act. It presents the views of Brian Koji, cochair of the ABA Section of Litigation's Employment & Labor Relations Committee, on assault against the enforceability of arbitration agreements. It mentions that businesses that have operations throughout the country will have to confront it.

The article discusses ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the case Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google, Inc. that the lawyers in a copyright suit may not research the public social media posts of their prospective jurors unless they fully disclose the extent of that research to each juror involved. It include comments from Marcus R. Chatterton of American Bar Association, online juror research by lawyers. It adds alternates for counsels to mitigate risks.

The article discusses a court case wherein the court ruled that defendant Biomet's e-discovery process was reasonable although a different search method might have discovered more relevant documents. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana examined Biomet's use of keyword searches and predictive coding. It highlights the plaintiff's objection to Biomet's search process which was found reasonable by the court. The court's ruling emphasized the proportionality standard.

The article informs about the conflict of interest between the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. It informs that PlastiPure Inc. and CertiChem have accused Eastman Chemical Co. regarding estrogenic activity and safety associated with baby feeding bottles. Information about a lawsuit filed by Eastman against plastics manufacturer PlastiPure and CertiChem at the U.S. District Court in Austin.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne regarding a court case of Sunbeam Products Inc. It informs that the judge disqualified Homeland Housewares LLC from representing Sunbeam Product as a plaintiff in a patent dispute because a lateral associate's conflict of interest was imputed to the entire firm. It further tells that Sunbeam Product had sued Homeland Housewares and others for patent infringement.

The article discusses a trademark infringement case between Gucci America Inc. and Guess? Inc. In this case, a federal magistrate judge from the U.S. District Court for New York ruled that Gucci could not claim attorney-client privilege with regard to the e-mail communications with its in-house counsel because he was not authorized to practice law at the time the communications were made.

The article focuses on an investigation conducted by sibling publication The Litigation Daily regarding the spending of the U.S. government on federal judges. It mentions that all the district court, bankruptcy, magistrate and tax are spend under Judgment Fund. It also presents the views of Christopher Landau, litigation head at Kirkland & Ellis, regarding the same.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court case Reid v. Unilever United States, Inc., where the court rejected more than half of the requested attorney fees. It mentions that the court is focused on redacted billing entries, writing press releases time spent for inquiries from television outlets, and clerical tasks of attorneys. It states that the court explained that the fee request should exclude time which are documented inadequately or not reasonably expended during the litigation.

The article discusses the U.S. District Court Simoneaux et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. which highlights the significant difference in threshold requirements for a new trial under different rules. It mentions that whistleblowers filed the case for violations of the False Claims Act, alleging the defendant withheld evidence of chemical leaks. It states that the Jury returned a defense verdict as the plaintiffs had not submitted evidence of the quantity of the alleged leaks.

In this article, the author refers a legal case of a woman who consult a pharmacist for her husband and alleged a pharmacist on over-the-counter drug, and discusses limited legal doctrines in the U.S. He mentions that allegation in the lawsuit on use of pseudoephedrine product worsened prostate issues woman's husband and difficulty urinating, bladder distension and burst blood vessels. He mentions that a pharmacist could not be protected under the doctrine according to the U.S. District Court.

The article discusses a case related to Subpoena for pharmacy records of prescriber's use of a controlled drug. It discusses the case in which a retired physician filed suit in the U.S. district court against his former accounting firm listing claims including professional malpractice, breach of contract and fraud. The court ruled that the defendant is entitled to have physician's medications-use history.

federal Appeals Court Judge rules that flooding from Katrina and other storms was a result of Corps construction, operation and maintenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana's ruling on September 4, 2014 on the Clean Water Act suit concerning the role of BP Exploration and Production Inc. in the Deep- water Horizon disaster in April 2010 and that the company may be subject to 18 billion U.S. dollars in penalties. Topics discussed include impact of penalties on contractors in the Gulf region, BP's plan to appeal the decision and views of Attorney General Tony West on the ruling.

The article discusses a case involving a refusal to honor certain controlled substance prescriptions, focusing on whether a local physician who is under investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) can maintain a lawsuit against the chain of pharmacy for intentional interference with the business relationships and invasion of privacy. It says that the judge at the U.S. district court granted motion by the defendant pharmacies by dismissing the case.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit District Court case Meathe v. Ret, which deals with the alleged breach of contract and fiduciary duty. Topics include the need to practice discretion to impose sanctions, the district court's skepticism of the case, and the interpretation on the vexatious conduct.

The article discusses the Atlantic Marine Construction Co. (AMC) v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas which focuses on the issue of a forum-selection clause in a contract between AMC and subcontractor J-Crew Management Inc. An Army Corps of Engineers child-development center in Fort Hood, Texas is involved in the construction contract. There is a split among U.S. Supreme Court justices over the issue.

The article informs that Mark G. Charest, doctoral program graduate in chemistry of 2004 batch of Harvard University has filed a 10 million dollars lawsuit against the university and chemistry professor Andrew G. Myers. It states that he has been cheated out of royalties due him from a patented and commercialized technology to create new antibiotic. It further states the suit has been filed in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on June 28 for redistribution of royalties.

The article informs that the U.S. District of Court has allowed the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) to investigate the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill disaster. It also mentions that Transocean Ltd., a drilling contractor, has argued that the oil rig disaster was a marine spill so investigation should be performed by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

The article discusses the implications of Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a DC District Court decision on August 21, 2012 that EPA erred in its implementation. EPA proposed a system where U.S. states would be required to clean up pollution in excess of significant contribution to downwind states' non-attainment. Throwing out CSAPR does not notably relieve EPA of their responsibility to address interstate pollution.

The article discusses the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa about having no jurisdiction for amending or altering the 103(k) order issued by Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) for Pattison Sand Co. The rejection of the court, it says, is upholding a ruling of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas McCarthy of MSHA Review Commission on the withdrawal order. It also notes the argument of Pattison Sand Co. about abuse of discretion in the 103(k) order.

The article discusses a court case wherein a former employee of a pharmacy benefits management (PBM) company filed a declaratory judgment action in a U.S. District Court to invalidate the non-competition provision of his employment contract. However, his former employer filed a counterclaim to ban him from working to other PBM firms. The court denied the employer's injunction and ruled that a non-competition provision must be specific to time period covered and geographic area to be enforceable.

The article reports that Nalco has filed documents with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to dismiss its involvement in the litigation regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. The company became involved in the litigation because it produces the oil dispersant Corexit. On the other hand, BP and the U.S. government agreed with the Gulf Coast Claims Facility.

The article discusses the U.S. based court case American General Life Insurance Co. v. Billard involving Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). It mentions that defendant took the deposition of a person designated to testify by American General in response to a Rule 30(b)(6) notice, which identified 16 different subjects for testimony. It informs that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa has rejected the concept of reasonable particularity raised by American General.

The article presents a court case Terraphase Engineering, Inc. v. Arcadis NV over the use of inadvertently disclosed privileged information. It mentions that case is heard in U.S. District Court in California, which granted accuser's motion for a temporary protective order due to opposing counsel's interception and use of privileged emails. It informs that the court ordered Arcadis to dismiss its counterclaim to re-file by new counsel without reference to any disclosed privileged information.

The article announces that Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia is considering the U.S. government's appeal of a lower court's preliminary injuction, but stem cell research can continue receiving federal funding.

The article discusses a court case related to the drug Trasylol, in which the U.S. District Court for the southern district of Florida has entered an order excluding the opinions of a regulatory expert, characterizing the witness as an "advocate." The plaintiffs alleged that Trasylol, which is used to control bleeding during heart surgery, has caused several injuries. The plaintiffs identified a regulatory expert to testify the U.S. Food & Drug Administration regulations applicable to Trasylol.

The article discusses a court case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, near Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA ), in which a federal magistrate judge ordered the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Tennessee Valley Authority to appear for deposition in a litigation associated with the failure of a power plant's ash waste dike. The magistrate judge ruled that the CEO's public statements about the settlement were part of his job.

The article reports that computer and mobile phone maker, Apple Inc. located in Cupertino, California has filed a lawsuit against mobile fone producer HTC Corp. of Taiwan. Apple has claimed that HTC Corp. has infringed 20 of its patents related to the iPhone user interface, underlying architecture and hardware. As stated the suit has been filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission and in the District Court in Delaware.

The article reports on the statement by U.S. District Court Judge Eldon E. Fallon that Knauf Plasterboard (Tianjin) Co. (KPT), a Chinese drywall manufacturer, offered to accept terms which will allow claimants to consolidate their claims in one lawsuit. KPT requested the lawsuit be processed through the Hague Convention which sets the method for the service of process abroad. The claims emanated from the alleged supply of defective plasterboard by KPT used in the housing constructions following hurricane Katrina.

The article reports that a motion to amend the lawsuit against artist Shepard Fairey was filed by Associated Press (AP) in October 2009. It notes that based on the papers filed in U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York, AP states that the claim of Fairey on his mistake of choosing which AP photograph he used for his Barack Obama "Hope," poster is not credible. It cites that the motion is based on his revelation that he invented and destroyed pertinent evidence from the case.

The article reports on the ruling of the Federal District Court for the Northern district of California on September 21, 2009. It holds that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) approval of the genetically modified Roundup Ready sugar beets from Mosanto Co. violates the National Environmental Policy Act. The ruling was made because USDA did not prepare an environmental impact statement. It also notes that the beets were modified to resist Mosanto's glyphosate herbicide, Roundup.

This section offers news briefs related to engineering in Washington as of September 7, 2009. The Federal Highway Administration is hopeful that the Congress will not cut 8.7 billion U.S. dollars of unobligated highway funds that is due to occur on September 30. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division, affirmed the executive order of U.S. President Barack Obama to require federal contractors and subcontractors to use the Department of Homeland Security's E-Verify system in a case involving business groups.

The article reports that the lawsuit filed by Chemical Weapons Working Group against the plan of U.S. Army to incinerate the stockpiles of nerve agents and mustard gas in Kentucky was dismissed by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The group claims that incineration would cause environmental harm and would threaten the public safety. However, Judge Richard K. Eaton notes that the failure of the group to offer alternatives for disposing the chemical weapons led to the dismissal.

The article focuses on the lawsuit filed by Chlorine Institute Inc. and American Chemistry Council requesting the district court in Utah to suspend the liability provision in the revised terms of service by Union Pacific Railroad Co. It notes that the new tariff rules shifts the liability of accident from the transit of chlorine and other highly toxic chemical to shippers. Chemical industry counsel Paul M. Donovan says that doing so will only indemnify the negligence of the railroad authority.

The article reports that judge Ronald M. Whyte from the U.S. District Court of Northern California has stayed the patent infringement case filed by Rambus Inc. against memory card manufacturers including Micron Technology Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., in view of a recent ruling from the Delaware District Court. Whyte ruled that Rambus cannot enforce the patents against Micron due to spoliation, or destruction of evidence, as a part of company policy after a period of time has passed.