This case involved plaintiff Lockwood alleging that defendant American Airlines' SABREvision computer reservation system infringed his patent number '355, following earlier rulings of non-infringement on two other patents. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and a motion on the validity of the '355 patent. The court granted American's motions, finding no infringement because the SABREvision system is a manually operated enhancement to an existing reservation system that does not automatically generate tailored sales presentations as claimed in the patent. Additionally, the court determined the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as it was not entitled to earlier filing dates from prior applications, making the 1986 patent prior art published more than one year before the effective filing date.
This case involved a dispute over liability for soil and groundwater contamination from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks on a San Diego property that had previously operated as a gas station. Plaintiff First San Diego Properties, a subsequent purchaser that acquired the site in 1985 for use as a shopping center, sued prior owners and Exxon under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and related state laws after discovering extensive pollution in 1990. Exxon filed a counterclaim seeking contribution from the plaintiff as the current owner, alleging that the plaintiff's inaction after learning of the contamination made it jointly and severally liable. The court dismissed the amended counterclaim, holding that a subsequent purchaser who did not deposit additional waste and had no prior knowledge of the contamination cannot be deemed a contributor under RCRA's citizen-suit provisions merely by virtue of ownership. The decision distinguished this private contribution action from government-led suits and declined to extend passive liability to these facts.
This case involves plaintiff Lockwood's patent infringement claims against American Airlines regarding two patents, the '115 and '359 patents, concerning certain devices or systems compared to the defendant's SABREvision technology. The court had previously granted summary judgment to the defendant on grounds of no literal infringement and inapplicability of the doctrine of equivalents due to prosecution history estoppel and lack of supporting equitable facts. Lockwood moved for reconsideration, citing new expert declarations, patent citation reports suggesting pioneering status, and arguments about equivalents in function-way-result and specific elements like payment acceptance and transportability. The court denied the motion, finding the additional information insufficient to alter its prior conclusions that estoppel barred the doctrine and no equities justified its application, while also rejecting requests for sanctions.
This case involved two field investigators suing their employer, the Carpenters/Contractors Cooperation Committee, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime compensation after working more than forty hours in certain weeks. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, ruling that they were not exempt from overtime requirements under the administrative exemption. The decision rested on findings that the plaintiffs failed both the salary test, as their compensation was subject to hourly calculations and potential deductions, and the duties test, because they performed production work rather than administrative duties involving discretion and management policies. The court also struck the defendant's laches defense as inapplicable under the FLSA, imposed Rule 11 sanctions, and awarded attorneys' fees.
This case was a patent infringement action in which Sure-Safe Industries and Intertrack Management sued C & R Pier Manufacturing, its president, and a former shareholder, alleging that the defendants' mobile home support products infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,937,989, which claims a combination of piers, a two-part I-beam clamp, and a tie-rod marriage lock assembly. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants after finding no infringement, because the accused products did not contain all claimed elements and there was no evidence of the required direct physical connection or assembly between the piers and tie-rods. The court later denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, ruling that they had not shown new facts or circumstances, had produced no direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence of infringing use, and that their arguments contradicted the patent's own inventor testimony; it also denied related requests for Rule 54(b) certification and a stay pending appeal, citing the need for a complete factual record and the lack of demonstrated urgency.
This case is a patent infringement action in which inventor Lockwood sued American Airlines, alleging that its SABREvision enhancement to the Sabre reservation system infringed two patents on self-service interactive audiovisual terminals for dispensing information, goods, and services. The district court granted American's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The court reasoned that the patents claim fully automated, self-contained machines providing direct customer interaction via motion video and audio to simulate personal interviews, while SABREvision is a manually operated system used exclusively by travel agents that displays only still images without sound and accepts no direct customer input. Claim terms were given their ordinary meanings based on the patent specifications and prosecution history, with no genuine issues of material fact shown.
