News

Case Summaries

Commercial Law

[02/01] In re American Express Merchants' Litigation
In a class action asserting Sherman Act claims, brought against a charge card issuer whose card acceptance agreement purported to preclude a merchant from bringing a class action lawsuit, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissal of the case is reversed, where the cost of plaintiffs' individually arbitrating their dispute with the defendant would be prohibitive, effectively depriving them of the statutory protections of the antitrust laws, and thus the class action waiver in the arbitration provision was unenforceable.

[01/27] C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P.
In a personal injury suit in which a lessor of helium-filled tanks used to inflate festive balloons cross-complained against the lessee to enforce an indemnification provision on the back of an unsigned invoice, the trial court's judgment in favor of the lessor and award of attorney fees to it is reversed, where: 1) the lessee did not manifest assent to the terms on the back of the unsigned invoice by course of dealing or course of performance, or under basic contract law; 2) the lessee did not sign the invoice or otherwise expressly agree to its terms; 3) an unsigned invoice itself is not a contract, and repeated delivery of a particular form does not make the form part of the parties' agreement; 4) payment of the invoice merely constituted the lessee's performance of the obligation under the oral contract to pay for the rental of the helium-filled tanks; and 5) assuming the transaction was a sale of goods covered by division 2 of the California Commercial Code, the indemnification provision was not an additional term of the contract under section 2207 of the Commercial Code.

[01/24] Long v. Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc.
In a putative class action against a men's clothing retailer alleging that its printing of “EXPIRY: 04/##” on a credit card receipt willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA)'s prohibition against printing the expiration date of the a credit card upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the point of the sale, the district court's grant of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed, where: 1) FACTA prohibits a merchant from printing expiration date information on a receipt provided to the consumer, even if the year is redacted; but 2) the defendant's interpretation of FACTA, although erroneous, was at least objectively reasonable, and thus there was no "willful" violation that could support a claim.

[01/24] Mabey Bridge & Shore, Inc. v. Schoch
In a suit by a corporation engaged in the business of supplying temporary steel bridges for construction projects, seeking a declaration that the Pennsylvania Steel Products Procurement Act, as interpreted and enforced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT), is unconstitutional, and requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining PennDOT from prohibiting the use of the company's temporary bridges on its projects, the district court's grant of summary judgment against the company on all its claims is affirmed, where: 1) the state Steel Act was not preempted by the federal Buy America Act and related federal regulations; 2) the Steel Act is not unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause; 3) PennDOT's actions did not violate the Contract Clause; and 4) PennDOT's application of the Steel Act did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Read More

Intellectual Property

[02/09] AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Apotex Corp.
In a patent infringement action involving patented methods for using the cholesterol-lowering drug rosuvastatin calcium, the district court's dismissal of the infringement claims is affirmed, where: 1) the district court erred in part by concluding that the plaintiffs' failure to state a cognizable claim under 35 USC section 271(e)(2) defeated its jurisdiction; but 2) the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 35 USC section 271(e)(2) based on the appellees' existing Abbreviated New Drug Applications filings, and 3) the plaintiffs' claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication.

[02/08] Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC
In a patent infringement suit involving patents relating to technology for weighing objects, such as large commercial trucks: 1) the district court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed, where the district court correctly construed the claims of one patent and substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of invalidity of another patent; and 2) the district court's denial of sanctions against the plaintiff for alleged withholding and destruction of relevant documents is affirmed, where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the documents were not highly relevant and that there was little harm to the defendant.

[02/07] Adair v. Carter
On appeal a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences holding that the appellants' single claim involved in an interference with the appellees was time-barred under 35 USC section 135(b)(1), the decision of the Board is affirmed, where: 1) to overcome a section 135(b) bar for a post-critical date claim, an applicant must show that such claim is not materially different from a pre-critical date claim present in the application or any predecessor thereto in order to obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date, and in this case the Board found material differences; 2) the Board properly presumed material differences between the plaintiffs' post- and pre-critical date claims; 3) the Board did not establish any absolute requirement that the pre-critical date claims must have been patentable to the plaintiff, and doing so would have been harmless error; and 4) the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider a claim for the first time on rehearing.

[02/07] Secalt, S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.
In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court’s grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney’s fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

Read More